Having problems registering on Coin Return? Please email support@coin-return.org, and include your PA username and PIN.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
For those who don't know, forums.penny-arcade.com will be closing soon. However, we're doing the same kind of stuff over at coin-return.org with (almost) all the same faces! Please do feel welcome to join us.
Posts
If it passes, which I don't see why it wouldn't it's not a big deal, but if it doesn't pass then everything is kind of fucked when you need to find a new board while we have to move the forums in a month.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
If we do have the initial slate of mods appointed, we should probably clarify if it's going to be at the discretion of the Board only or the Transition Team (or a subset of the Transition Team). And we're definitely working on this! There's a lot of stuff going on, but figuring out how to appoint and/or elect moderators is high on our priority list. As far as progress on this front, there is a survey among the current mods to see who are interested in continuing to be moderators in the future.
MHWilds ID: JF9LL8L3
So we can say "the elected board will select mods" and just put a pin in it there for right now.
That would let us move forward towards figuring out other decisions.
Like how we elect a board.
And again, even if it became prudent to select mods before then, the vote should be on how to select the temp mods (whether the TT does it, we carry on the current method we're using at PA, or something else) not on whether to replace the transition team right at the most critical juncture.
Reminder that the transition team is not permenent. They're not becoming the board once the new place is settled. If any of them want to remain in leadership positions, they'll have to go through the same process as anyone else.
I am supremely confident that a vote would just be a formality. Considering the incredibly successful fundraiser we just had and ongoing slow but steady progression to the new forums I can't imagine there's any significant portion of the community that would be opposed to carrying on as we have been. Even most of the disagreement here on the Future Forum board are quibbles not foundational problems or glaring issues with the process.
However, if things are so fundamentally rotten the community gives a vote of no confidence in the current board / TT, everything is already fucked and it's better to rip that bandaid off now then pretend it isn't and let things blow up when there is even less time to course-correct. Again, I do not think this is the case at all, but just in that hypothetical finding out sooner is better than later.
For the board? Sure.
First off, and this is a big deal: we do not have an alternate structure. A call for confidence in the Board is a massive issue if it fails. These are the people up to their eyeballs in the work of setting up this new community for us to migrate to, and we do not have the luxury of time to resolve plan B. We are already tight as it is.
More importantly, the Board isn't the issue. The actual problem stems from a lack of mandate to perform an action. This is separate to a vote of confidence in the Board. If the issue is a lack of mandate - Vote on the ability to vest in them that mandate.
If we get to a point where this actually becomes critical - and I note that the TT in full have not, at this point, raised a concern that we cannot perform these activities in the time remaining - if we get to a point where it becomes critical, the vote is not 'do we trust the Board?', but rather 'Do we as a community grant the Board (or a designated moderation nomination committee), in the form it exists now, the mandate to perform this activity on behalf of the community?'.
Stay the fuck away from phrasings like 'Confidence in the Board'. That way lies only grief and darkness.
If "some people" don't like what the TT have accomplished and what they're re working on, too bad
If even the people suggesting the vote think it's a formality then why even have the vote
The fact that the fundraiser the TT held raised such a significant sum of money well beyond their expectations with hundreds of donors should perhaps be an indication they have community confidence, and I'd argue people without said confidence may not actually intend to jump to the next community regardless
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
But four(?) of them are also the interim board, so I think there's some overlap in how the terms are being used because there's overlap in how the roles are currently allocated. All of the Board are on the TT, but only a fraction of the TT are on the Board.
If we want to sort out moderators, and we're not voting for them, then we need them to be picked. If the current board 'doesn't have a mandate' or whatever, then that needs to be resolved.
It's not rude to come to the logical conclusion of this state of affairs. Especially when we've taken two weeks to read, vote on, and discuss the first Key Decision of a dozens or so, though apparently we'll front load the most time sensitive amongst them.
Though it is kind of funny to think that we might jump through those hoops just to end up right back where we started, which is the basic premise of a referendum happening, or that those folks might've been the declared (interim) Board for, like, two months.
But anyways, if we need a board to pick mods, then voting for a board seems awfully pertinent. If we're going to have voting or referendum'ing or whatever happen for a week+, then it needs to happen really soon. If the design and functionality are mostly done, but we still can't move in until mods and the board are set, then... I don't see how it's rude to want to focus on the remaining things that need doing.
Obviously there are other things that need to be worked out and put before the community, like the rules and whatnot, but as expressed, the TT is not just 4 people, it's my understanding there are substantially more, on governance, rules, testing, feature creation/adjusting, etc. As has been noted in the thread, if we just want to give a thumbs up/down on the current set, that's not a Herculean task. And who amongst them wouldn't pass muster? They've risked putting up money and a ton of time/effort already, their names are (as far as I'm aware) attached to the documentation, did any of them enter into this effort thinking 'sure, I'll just append myself to this for a couple of months and then walk into the sunset'?
Which, to my point, is that presumably the folks who have stepped up wish to remain, at least for now. Do we have to have folks volunteer to act as tribute in their stead? Obviously doing so openly may have some complications, but if someone really thinks that MI, Zon, Dib, or Delz should at least go through a Primary or whatever, then we should probably make that happen.
And if nobody else wants the seat, then I guess that solves the issue for now, until someone does, or one of them no longer wishes to hold it.
People who say that the board is unelected are not wrong, but those are the four that took the initiative. They've done the work, and while I have offered critique to date, that's because it has been requested in an effort to get to the best possible outcome in the time that we have.
If we need to give them a thumbs up/down, then lets do it. If someone else wants the job, well we should sort that out. If not, then all the discussion around the topic is just hashing out a contingency that needs to be addressed eventually (someone stepped down or failing to uphold the CoRe values in an egregious way), but isn't actually advancing the ball on the field for the current issue at hand.
I don't think there's really a need to vote on anybody on the transition team unless people can provide some of evidence of why they shouldn't be working on the project.
{Bluesky Account }{Writing and Story Blog}
Like, this is a solution in search of a problem. We don't even know if this is an issue yet. Lets not blow it up, especially as we have had assurances that in fact, on the timelines involved, we still have time to resolve all these issues without resorting to interim half-measures.
Let's not overengineer a tape-and-gum solution and progress with keeping our energy and focus on the actual real matters before us, rather than wasting effort on a hypothetical that seems unlikely to come to pass.
This was a suggestion I raised specifically to address points raised by Tox and the cheat a few pages back about having "the unelected board just choose the moderators".
I don't think it's necessary as I've repeatedly mentioned and as noted the fundraiser was a good vote of confidence in and of itself, but if this was more than a one or two off concern about the legitimacy of the TT / Board it's an easy solution that doesn't depend on any documentation being written / approved and isn't a blocker for any other activities.
Everyone good now?
You should consider all major decisions in flux until you see a member of the current Board of Directors (myself, zonugal, dezhand, or dibbit) announce it, OR a member of the Governance Team (tef, feral, zerzhul, gereg, and chanus) announce it directly.
I know folks are getting anxious and excited about everything, but you won't have long to wait for some big updates, and new details being presented that should answer a lot of questions. The team is hoping to have a lot to drop on you in the beginning of next week, and I think it'll be worth the wait. Progress should be pretty fast going forward, I expect. Just try not to get ahead of us on some of these debates.
Okay, but this seems at odds. If we're not voting for mods, someone is picking them. If it's not this current board, then the board that picks the mods needs to be chosen.
Lengthy screeds aside, that's my point. If the holdup to 'going live' on a larger scale is needing mods, and to get mods we need the board (or some mysterious Option C that hasn't been talked about yet, as was hinted at), that seems like a natural focal point.
Just so it's clear. I'm not saying it's the only option available, but we don't have very long to get some of these balls rolling.
Especially if we're going to go with proposing the path to getting the board to getting the mods (or whatever), voting on it/getting feedback/assimilating feedback/amending the matter and going from there, etc. Not to downplay the hard work involved, more to note that we only have a few more chances to take steps coming up if each step is a week or two long.
Legos are cool, MOCs are cool, check me out on Rebrickable!
I think 40 is considered more traditional.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Yeah but the deadline :[
e: how dare you convert that to a real smiley Vanilla. XF would never
Look, if we’re doing this, we gotta do it right. You rush a miracle, you get rotten miracles.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
If folks have a real need to keep arguing about voting for the interim legal board or the TT as a whole, take it to the water cooler or made a new thread for it.
Either way, as members of the governance committee have said; their intention is to have a process in place for electing a board and for mod selection prior to moving to CoRe.
I’d prefer it if people didn’t back seat mod in an attempt to silence certain people. You’re saying don’t speak for the TT or committees because they can speak themselves- so let them do that if they have a problem with people coming across as speaking for them.
This goes for anyone else. Do not back seat mod.
It wasn't an open-ended conversation.
I think making it clear who does and doesn't speak for the Transition Team or Governance Committee, as someone who spent a good part of this thread as the voice of it, is a good thing to ask and call for.
It is confusing who is speaking for what but there have been quite a few people who have no part or knowledge making confident statements that are not at all supported in anything that it should be called out.
I am no longer part of the transition team or governance committe, but I did for a while speak for or as paet of it, and now want to make sure nobody is confused who is speaking on their behalf.
Are there any Vanilla roles we can assign to the TT to make their position visible to posters in these threads?