FCAL Proposal Announced at GoMe

[Paradox]

The actual process wasn't discussed in much detail. Chogon actually asked that we didn't discuss it in much detail (which I think may have been a mistake, since there should be a lot more concrete information available to everyone).

Now I do think that you guys are getting into too many details about how the GoMa would test and approve an Age, which I think is a different process (or one part of the bigger process). The approval of the FCA is one part that allows someone to work on something. But how it progresses to get the GoMa approval stamp is a different discussion and part of the structure of GoMa and GoW.

[andylegate]

Please everyone note that in the above Chogon quote, we had not come up with the idea for a FCA Panel yet.

(don't want the conversation spiraling back to "Maintainers trying to control" or "So its a done deal" thing)

[pappou]

The perception of secrecy creates the problem. It tarnishes all the good works that may flow from it.

To answer you, MJ, i feel it would be foolish to carry on with the proposal that, " Panel members will be chosen by the guilds' leadership teams, and will serve initially for a term of a few months." No matter the intentions, its the perception of it. It will look like a cooked up deal and will surely create another source of problems.

The more that unthinking people attempt to shut me up by fantasies on my jealousies, my bad back, or my gold teeth, the more these red herrings make it seem that they have something to lose, something they gained from the secret meetings. It seems as though they are mounting these personal attacks because they fear a democratic process. This may not be true (i really doubt that it is), but its the perception.

My suggestion, MJ, is to purge this whole secrecy issue by having an entirely open democratic vote. If there were to be eight panelists, then each person who wants to vote should have eight votes to cast (or whatever the number). This would be for all guild slots. Each guild may nominate a preferred slate (depending upon the number of guilds versus the number of panel positions). But nominations would be only suggestions and the voters could vote for whomever they please, across the board. Each vote could be a write-in, or they could be split with nominations.

There will be some details to decide in this procedure, but those who are unwilling to submit in this manner to the will of the people will leave the perception that they don't want the unintelligent rabble messing up their agenda. As for myself, i could not be on the panel anyway, because i am too scripturally challenged to make those decisions.

To my mind, MJ, this is the best path for clearing the air of its difficult beginning.

[andylegate]

Another note on electing panel members to the FCA Panel:

Each guild could hold elections internally, but in an open part of their forum (does the GoA have that? Wait, I think Alahmnat said that they could use is DWPR).

That way everyone can see the election process to the panel.

Further thought on the "Stand In" incase someone on the panel is not able to continue, etc. Might think about having a "Runner Up" from the election process.

To keep the rotation going, those elected must then (after their term on the panel is over) sit out the next election process, skipping one as it where. This at least ensures that no one keeps being re-elected to the panel over and over.

I believe that the process can be stream lined down to a 2 week process, 1 week to make nominations and people to accept those nominations, and then the following week to hold the actual polls for those nominated.

Ah, also, I believe it was asked (might have been over at the GoMa forum) how many per guild on the panel.
This might go hand in hand with how many FCA apps actually get submitted. Could be as simple as 2 per guild, so that would make a panel total of 6. Then again, we could have 1,000 submissions, and that would swamp the panel all right.
We need some thought on that too.

[ghaelen]

While you are working out the internal issues, I'd like to know if you could clear up something that has become a source of confusion for me.

This helps a little, but brings up more questions.
Quoting Andylegate

Writers for Technical. Maintainers for Operational and Archivists for Story.

If I have a project that involves an age, a storyline, characters, possible encroachment on Cyan's story, and let's say I don't know which thing I do will actually encroach, where would I go to start the process of getting permissions/license to even begin this project? Let's say for argument's sake that I don't want to go to three different forums. And let's also say that I have a storyboard with visuals, character profiles, backstory, and a plot that will live well in a lateral environment with living explorers and all that jazz. I don't necessarily want the whole world to know about it quite yet, but I do need help from the GOW, other storytellers, artists, etc.

And last, it doesn't make sense for me to get any help at all if the whole project has to be canned because it doesn't get approval. So now I would really rather not post it several places.

I don't expect anyone to have an answer. I'd like your policies teams to think over an answer. Find a way for poor Ghaelen wannabe creator explorer to easily figure out where to go to lay out her (emotionally-attached-to) masterpiece and bring it to manifestation.

edit: I read this again and it seems rather clipped. Didn't mean it that way, it was just the sixth incarnation of a post I've been trying all afternoon to make.

[BladeLakem]

RE: the quote from Chogon: Actually, that's really important - the FCAL process is separate than the 'approval' process. FCAL seems to be like a building permit. It simply means you are allowed to use Cyan IP. I think it's getting mixed up with the concept of an approval process for MORE Ages (whether that includes bug checking, quality checking, story integrity or whatever).

The approval process needs to be a separate discussion.

[andylegate]

Right, lets be clear here on what the FCAL Approval is:

FCA License Approval, means you have the approval to create an Age that you can share publicly via the ULM at this time

The MORE version of a FCAL would be the same, but it's then up to Cyan if it get's put public (IE MORE servers)

The FCAL is nothing more than a agreement between Cyan and the Age Creator, that the Age Creator agrees to the guidlines and policies set forth by Cyan Legal. A MORE version of that, may have more stuff in the FCAL, we don't know. That's something that Tony at Cyan will have to tell us (which they have not yet).

The Panel simply sees what an Age Creator wants to do and said panel can tell said Writer if there is a problem or not before the Age Creator does any hard work. If there is a problem, the Age Creator get's told what it is of course and they can either fix it, or decide to completely trash the idea and do something else.

The whole time, the Panel is under a NDA with said Writer (Panel won't blab about the Age so the Writer can surprise people. And also not blab about any problems).

Once the Writer, now with FCAL in hand, completes the Age that the FCAL is for, the Panel can then inspect the Age and make sure that said Writer kept with the FCAL agreement that they were given. If they didn't, they get pointed out what the problem is (Age crashes, Age has a story line where Yeesha is spotted eating Ho-Ho's, what ever). At NO TIME will the panel inspect the Age for "Cyan Quality" or anything like that. That's NOT the FCA Panel's job. Nor is that for the ULM version.

The MORE version however, will also not have the Panel doing that. That will be Cyan's call. Fan's are demanding quality, so it will be up to Cyan to decide what is quality and what is not (at least that is what we know right now. I don't know if the Fans will ever except a Fan Panel on Quality.......shruddering again on that one).

If the Writer who got the FCAL, and finished the Age, but violated part of the FCAL, and refuses to fix said problem, the Panel then notifies Cyan. It is then out of the FCA Panel's hands. All actions after that are up to Cyan (IE revokes the FCAL, or simply says, "oh sure, no biggy. We can live with that.").

As to the privacy in asking for help that someone asked: that's up to you. If you want to build your Age in secret, the FCAL Panel will be under a NDA not to discuss your Age. But if you go and request help from people that Blab about it, that's not something the Panel can help you with.

As far as the where to go to apply for the FCAL, that's something that has not been worked out yet. 2 reasons for that: becasue one is for placing the AGe on the ULM, and the other is for MORE. The first one, some ideas were kicked around about making it to where you apply for your FCAL via the ULM in the first place. But that's something that Trylon or the others might know better. What I do know is that it was something that was left open because, A) we don't know the answer to, and B) Fans here can make suggestions for that.

[Eleri]

Sorry, but the FCA process really does need to focus solely on the technical and IP aspects, not on 'quality', however that may be defined. In the end, explorers themselves will define and recognise quality, simply by revisiting the ages they see as 'good' and ignoring those they see as 'poor' after an initial visit. But that way, everyone's efforts would have a place, and no group of explorers is exalted as 'judge' over others -- something that is anathema to us.

The best solution is one that allows both popular content to rise to the top, but doesn't ignore the long tail of small or "lesser" Ages that while not necessarily as professional may contain novel ideas or astounding quality in one area at the expense of others.

The key point is that a solution needs to address two issues: (A) A way to mark content generally regarded as passing a certain criteria of quality (however formal or informal) while (B) not discriminating or censoring (within reason) works that don't meet the criteria in (A).

I agree also. My refrence to 'quality' was not to suggest that anyone (singularily or collectively) get to filter quality, but that the community continue talking about what they like in Ages, and perhaps what they don't. So, where the Guilds will be ensuring technical functionality, the community will help maintain that undefined 'something' that makes Myst Ages unique, through their discussion, and their visitation of those Ages.

[Frisky Badger]

If I have a project that involves an age, a storyline, characters, possible encroachment on Cyan's story, and let's say I don't know which thing I do will actually encroach, where would I go to start the process of getting permissions/license to even begin this project? Let's say for argument's sake that I don't want to go to three different forums. And let's also say that I have a storyboard with visuals, character profiles, backstory, and a plot that will live well in a lateral environment with living explorers and all that jazz. I don't necessarily want the whole world to know about it quite yet, but I do need help from the GOW, other storytellers, artists, etc.

We aren't sure where you'll go to apply for an FCAL, but it will be one place as will the exact terms of the FCAL whenever we get them. You won't have to hope around to get various things approved. If the ULM or some other mechanism is used to add content, the application could be worked into there or it could be a form on a website. And we don't know exactly what the application will contain or ask for.

And last, it doesn't make sense for me to get any help at all if the whole project has to be canned because it doesn't get approval. So now I would really rather not post it several places.

Agreed, and like I said above you'll only have to go to one place, where ever it is. Approval would have to be in two separate steps. 1. You agree to whatever terms Cyan has (by clicking an "I agree" button or something) and a summary of your story is checked to make sure there aren't any conflicts. After that, you get your FCAL and go make your Age. When you reach the point where you are ready for the Age to "go public": 2. The Age is inspected for potential copyright/intellectual property issues and technical stability. If that is all good...then you're all good

RE: the quote from Chogon: Actually, that's really important - the FCAL process is separate than the 'approval' process. FCAL seems to be like a building permit. It simply means you are allowed to use Cyan IP. I think it's getting mixed up with the concept of an approval process for MORE Ages (whether that includes bug checking, quality checking, story integrity or whatever).

That is more or less right BladeLakem, though Cyan did want kind of a summary of any storylines prior to giving out an FCAL.

[Gadren]

I would argue against having some sort of general election for this group. It made sense to do one for the Liaisons, since the purpose of those was to have representatives of the entire explorer community to the DRC. However, deciding who's on the board should be an internal decision, or something appointed so it can be guided by merit and skills instead of just popularity or something like that. To constantly be concerned with the "perception" of elitism (which sounds a lot like the unsupported "some argue" in Internet debates) will keep the GoW and GoMa from getting stuff done.

Keep the deliberations open and visible to the public, by all means, but the elections themselves should be internal. If we're not choosing people to be representatives of the entire Cavern, then it should be chosen by those who have shown themselves to be learning the relevant skills.