Guild of Writers Leadership

[belford]

bluewyvern wrote: "I also really like the idea of getting an e-mail notification when there's a vote"

Then create an email list for announcing votes. That isn't an argument for using such a list as a quorum for a vote question.

"20%" and "six months" are both arbitrary numbers; both could be wrong. (This forum has existed for just over *three* months, and I bet most of the people who have posted here are not regular readers today.)

By having a quorum scheme, you're creating opportunities to get these numbers wrong. You're creating work -- someone has to maintain the list, because votes aren't legitimate if the list is out of date. I think the costs are high and the benefits are low. You're not really buying any certainty about the outcome that you wouldn't have if you just said "Go to this web page to vote!"

[Montgomery]

Please forgive an outsider (but interested party) for posting his opinion, uninvited. However as a Guildmaster (temporary) of the Pre-Guild of Maintainers, and one who will be working intensely with the Pre-GoW, I do have an opinion on this matter.

Chacal and Nadnerb, would it help to think of these efforts here as forming "Representation" as opposed to forming "Leadership?" I think that is the most important part of all this. I don't believe anyone is attampting to sieze power or force any square pegs into round holes. These proposed Councilors are points-of-contact for each of the assigned categories.

Look, one of them is the forum admin. Does anyone really have any problem with asigning a single person to managing the forum? Or would you prefer to give every member here full admin privilages and let them go at it? You have an issue or request involving the forum, and you know exactly who to communicate that to with some level of confidence that your request will get a fair hearing and get implemented. If it is something that affects the whole membership, I'm sure the Webmaster would open it up for discussion before making a decision alone. And just as important, there is a point-of-contact who non-members can uitilize for asking questions or making requests.

This is all there is to it, really. For my part, as the chosen representative of the Pre-Guild of Maintainers on the subject of managing Age Inspections and Reporting, I need a point-of-contact to ask questions and make requests. Shouting my request into a room-full of busy Writers all doing their own thing will never yield (and has not to date yielded) any meaningful results. What is needed is a representative within the GoW who can take up the task of gathering input from the membership. Something this rep would know but that I would not is that perhaps only a small subset of the membership could answer my question. Then the rep would be in a position to tap that subset. In other words, form an ad hoc committee to address the request (as it will ultimately benefit everybody, from the GoW right down to the explorers). Committes don't form themselves -- it takes somebody with (pardon the word) "leadership" to step up and fill a need. And leaders don't automatically step up every time there is a vacuum.

Look, there is a fundamental difference between the GoMa-supporters and GoW-supporters:

The Writers were already aware of one another in large part, had already formed relationships, opinions, teams, etc. and rolled up their sleeves. Tools have been forged, experience gained, and progress made. As a general rule your membership consists of people getting ink on their fingers, Writing Ages.

Whereas the Maintainers almost entirely signed on based on a wink and a promise of a future set of ill-defined responsibilities (I say "almost" because about a half-dozen of us attempted to form a working group of Age Inspectors some time back, but exclusion from the rehersal Ages plus the introduction of episodic content effectively made our efforts irrelevant). When the GoMa was offered to us by the DRC we had little to do other than establish all of the guild structure we could think of, including workable methods of deciding what structures we wanted. We formed a framework of leadership. But what we really built was a system of representation -- points-of-contact for new members to communicate their questions and ideas regarding different aspects of the guild (Communication, Inspecting, Personnel, etc.), and representatives who can guide the efforts of those interested in those departments.

So it is perfectly understandable that our two groups approach the questions of representative leadership and organizational structure in completely different ways and with completely different attitudes. To be blunt, you are artists and we are beaurocrats. But when you think about it artists need structure more than beaurocrats do. We excel at shuffling papers, making checlists and crossing Ts. But artists (as a rule) do not. So without some form of beaurocracy you will always remain a group of individuals in one room. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Except ....

You are billing yourselves as a guild. And a loose collection of individuals is not a guild. It's not even a club. It is a crowd. Maybe even a mob. If you want to be a guild you need to submit to a structural framework. You might keep in mind that Cyan/the DRC will almost certainly agree on this one point.

Listen, adopt a structure that has a huge backdoor so that you can revoke it if it isn't working. Treat it like an Age -- render your design and see if it has any bugs. If it runs smoothly, pat yourselves on the back and enjoy the fruits of your labor. If it doesn't, debug it.

I will tell you that aside from the obvious reason, the Maintainers need the Writers. We need to get input from you on how we can best do our job to serve you most effectively. We need help refining our methods in-the-field. So don't feel like you can't count on us to to help you where we might be of assistance. You have the experience in Writing Ages that are a joy to explore; we do not. And Andy and others have come to you, hardhat in hand, and asked for advice, which you have given. We have the experience in forming a functional guild structure, complete with ... ahem ... leadership. We are more than happy to help wherever we can.

[Trylon]

"20%" and "six months" are both arbitrary numbers; both could be wrong. (This forum has existed for just over *three* months, and I bet most of the people who have posted here are not regular readers today.)

By having a quorum scheme, you're creating opportunities to get these numbers wrong. You're creating work -- someone has to maintain the list, because votes aren't legitimate if the list is out of date. I think the costs are high and the benefits are low. You're not really buying any certainty about the outcome that you wouldn't have if you just said "Go to this web page to vote!"

Yup, the 20% and 6 months are arbitrary numbers. Well, more somewhat of an educated guess. Until they can be field-tested, and possibly adjusted they'll still be untested numbers.
But, more specifically, they are worst case scenario numbers, used to indicate when we consider it a worst case scenario (scenario being: not enough people interested in the issue), and what to do in such a case. That is basically what this whole discussion is about: the worst case scenario.

My aversion of additional lists and structures, is mostly based on the famous quote "Keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler than that." Currently the added maintenance of such a list would complicate simplicity, without proof that it needs to be that complex.

[Whilyam]

Or would you prefer to give every member here full admin privilages and let them go at it?

BAN WARS *theme music plays*

...

I don't particularly care whether we have a leadership or a representation. As is oft-repeated, no one has any real power here. I think every sane person knows that. I cannot reach through the internet and wiggle my finger at people. Everyone gets that

A leadership will succeed on a vision that other members wish to follow, not via their power.

Also, no, no one can represent me. These representatives would not be representing me, though. They are representing the Guild. Just like they cannot represent me, I cannot get in contact with Cyan nor coordinate with the other guilds. Some people will have fun making lots of great ages. Others will have fun getting and passing on Cyan's ideas and maybe even special projects for the Guild.

[Chacal]

Please forgive an outsider (but interested party) for posting his opinion, uninvited.

Hello, Montgomery. You are well respected be everyone and your comments are welcome.

I know and understand what you're telling us. Putting apart forum administration, which is different because these forums are graciously provided by individuals and it's normal they keep control over it, there are a few statements that are truisms for some but not for others. For instance, I disagree with the following from your post:

- Shouting my request into a room-full of busy Writers all doing their own thing will never yield (and has not to date yielded) any meaningful results. Not sure about that. So far so good, I think. Let's wait for the problem before solving it.
Then the rep would be in a position to tap that subset. In other words, form an ad hoc committee The rep would decide that himself? No thanks. All such offers must be public, and then you don't need a rep.
But when you think about it artists need structure more than beaurocrats do. I work with both (I am neither), and it depends on deliverables and deadlines, which may not be a concern here.
And a loose collection of individuals is not a guild. Actually yes, but it is the GoW, not GoMa
If you want to be a guild you need to submit to a structural framework. There have been real-life guild for centuries without any structure.
Cyan/the DRC will almost certainly agree on this one point. Might agree. Or might not care as long as we feed them Ages. And even if they do, well, maybe they'll have to do without.

There are things that can go wrong. At least this proposal has the merit of not proposing a power structure. But it proposes another dangerous thing: secret channels. A single point of contact is a single channel for information. To make an analogy with plumbing: pipes will clog, thus reducing flow. In the case of contact with, say, Cyan, the flow is information, and information is power. Someone will then find it desireable to clog the pipe.

As soon as someone becomes the point of contact with Cyan, he will start witholding privileged information. That's human nature. Cyan might even insist on it. This is not acceptable. Not a single word from Cyan should be kept private among a few of us. Cyan has to be aware of it from the start and deal with it. They want NDAs? Fine, I'll sign one.

I have another, more fuzzy reason. GoW is not really a bunch of artist, it's more a bunch of hackers. This hacker state of mind is the reason we have tools, we have fan-made Ages, it's the very reason there's a MOUL today. I feel we stand to lose this by trying to graft a structure into it.

I realize other guilds find it difficult to interact with an unstructured GoW. It's perfectly normal. Things aren't always easy. They will eventually find a way, because it is their problem, not ours, and they might even enjoy it at some point. Ironically, some of us came back from last week's guilds meeting and reported that perception. It's ironic because they attended the meeting (without being formally tasked), represented us, listened to other guilds, and reported the results. If that isn't efficient interaction, I don't know what is.

I realize these discussions are frustrating for the excellent group of Writers who have submitted this proposal. It's always frustrating to try to lead a community that doesn't want, or need, to be led. I wish them luck, but so far no one has convinced me of any such need that would overweight the risks. It is my hope that, if this doesn't work, they won't keep submitting until we finally give up. Twice is enough.

[andylegate]

Shouting my request into a room-full of busy Writers all doing their own thing will never yield (and has not to date yielded) any meaningful results.

Not sure about that. So far so good, I think. Let's wait for the problem before solving it.

They haven't. In the time period that we have submitted questions bearing on the Pre-GoMa that need input from the GoW, what we have received is a few responses and the posts have filtered down, down, and again down.
Asking technical questions about Age writting, and you'll get a host of responses. Anything else, poor response at best.

Then the rep would be in a position to tap that subset. In other words, form an ad hoc committee

The rep would decide that himself? No thanks. All such offers must be public, and then you don't need a rep.

We have tried it without a rep (your way) and it hasn't worked. Again. No coordinated response. We have a few suggestions from individuals, but a few individuals may not represent the majority.

And a loose collection of individuals is not a guild.

Actually yes, but it is the GoW, not GoMa

No, a loose collection of individuals is.......a loose collection of individuals. A Guild actually has structure of some sort, even if that structure itself is loose, it's still there. The GoW doesn't even have that right now.

If you want to be a guild you need to submit to a structural framework.

There have been real-life guild for centuries without any structure.

*ahem* Show me one please?

The thing I keep seeing here is the same: a few individuals that seem very upset about any kind of structure or leadership put into place. As though they think that such a thing is going to leave them out in the cold.
The other thing that I have seen repeated on several other discussions about this very subject, is that some seem to think that everyone in the GoW is making Ages. That's what they do. That's all they should do. Get to work.
Might I point out, that not everyone of the people here are stuck in front of the computer using Blender? You have other artist, both visual and musical. You have story tellers. And yes, you'll have paper pushers too.

The thing that I've found rather eyebrow raising, was the fact that, in past discussions, the majority of the people that spoke, indicated that they desired some form of structure, and leadership (even if you call it represenatives or council, the act of taking such action upon yourself is still an act of leadership, I should know have been there), yet at the same time, I went and looked, only 4 people spoke against it. And only a couple rather verbally.

Yet it was enough to stop it every time.

Cyan withholds information from you, me, everyone all the time. It is not a new thing. We have our very own explore, Reteltee who is privy to knowlege that we are not. This is the norm.

If Cyan only wants certain people to know things, then that's how it is going to be. No mater how much you may or may not like that information choke point. They are not going to allow all 200 of you to beat down their door. Ain't going to happen.

If the idea that So-and-So knows something that you don't bothers you so much, then move to BE one of the ones that will have that information.
Me, I like surprises. I hate spoilers with a passion. But I also believe in what we are doing over in the Pre-GoMa. Enough to set my hate for spoilers aside so that I can help.

Still, I see what is being proposed is going to happen, since only a few individuals don't like it.

How does that saying go? The Needs Of The Many........

[Whilyam]

Ultimately, know this: Cyan will do what it wants. Whether you support this or no, there will come a time when the matter is ended and one side will have to deal with the other. As of now, this leadership/representation/etc. is for this developing explorer Guild. When Cyan has built its infrastructure up (I'd image server space for guild files like maps or maintainer reports as well as special tools for some guilds like the messengers to use) then they will weigh in and the Guilds will be dealt with. Rules of content will be enforced and our efforts will be shown to everyone who wishes. None of us now have the right to dictate that, and none of us claim it, because none of us can until that can be a possibility. We all seek to move forward as best we can.

[Jennifer_P]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few--or even the one." --Spock

They haven't. In the time period that we have submitted questions bearing on the Pre-GoMa that need input from the GoW, what we have received is a few responses and the posts have filtered down, down, and again down.
Asking technical questions about Age writting, and you'll get a host of responses. Anything else, poor response at best.

Well, like I mentioned earlier I don't know if it's really fair to say that we haven't responded because we have no representatives. The two major examples I recall of people asking the general population for help were when people requested 8 training Ages and also when they asked for a list of things to test for in Ages. In the first case the request was kind of large and boring--a task both daunting and unappealing. If a representative had posed the same request he probably wouldn't have gotten many takers either. In the second request, you asked what we wanted you to look for in Ages. Well, since so few of us have used your services before, we don't really know what we want ourselves. We probably even handle most of our own bug testing personally (especially since some of us have personally written up Age reviews about 4,000 words longer than a certain Guild could... ) and your help at this point probably seems like something nice, but not really necessary to much of the guild, simply for the fact that we don't know what we're missing. (That's just how I perceive it, though I could definitely be wrong.) Furthermore, if you don't think an issue like bug testing criteria will affect you (however wrong you may be), then you probably won't bother to get into a discussion about it. Do you see what I mean?
I do favor a guild representative just for the convenience of other guilds who don't know us personally yet, but I don't think that the reason your posts went unanswered had much to do with whether or not an official representative posted the requests on your behalf. As for Cyan wanting a representative for us, I'm not concerned about that a bit! All Cyan has to do is post on this forum anywhere and instantly we'll be drawn to the official Cyan-ness like starving piranhas to Hormel Headquarters.

[theclam]

How does that saying go? The Needs Of The Many........

Ages aren't a need.

[Chacal]

All Cyan has to do is post on this forum anywhere and instantly we'll be drawn to the official Cyan-ness like starving piranhas to Hormel Headquarters.

Damn! Your metaphors are stronger than mine. The mark of a great writer.
Indeed you are powerful as the Emperor thought.

The thing that I've found rather eyebrow raising, was the fact that, in past discussions, the majority of the people that spoke, indicated that they desired some form of structure, and leadership (even if you call it represenatives or council, the act of taking such action upon yourself is still an act of leadership, I should know have been there), yet at the same time, I went and looked, only 4 people spoke against it. And only a couple rather verbally.

Yet it was enough to stop it every time.

Would you rather there was no debate? If it was enough to stop it, then the desire of the majority musn't have been that strong. Most likely, people don't really care that much. For all my verbalness, I don't either, I just like debating. Too much, in fact, I think I'll yield the stage to other actors. Still, that shouldn't deter the real test which is voting, and if it comes out positive then the majority has spoken and the case is settled.

I agree it is a little strange that it stopped the first times. Does that mean that controversial questions won't ever reach the ballot? On the other hand, seeing how this proposal is much better than the first ones, maybe the debate served a purpose.