Feedforward & Trustees

OutlawPete

I think Feedforward is a great idea but I'd just like to give a little Feedback on Feedforward if that's okay.

I can see that a mountain of work has been put in, honestly I can, but it all seems to be a little complex and not very user friendly.

Could it possibly be tidied up somewhat?

Prehaps easier said than done but at the moment, it just all seems to be a tad overwhelming to be hit with so many Stickies (why are they stickies to begin with?) and the 'One Post Per Person' vs 'Free For all' threads really do come across as overkill.

Can't we just have one thread for each issue?

Also, with regards to the Trustee list in Feedforwad Private.

Only a few months back there were threads asking and discussing precisely what people felt that the criteria for choosing Trustees should be. Many excellent points were made, well supported points at that.

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

Dohnny Jepp

OutlawPete wrote: »

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

In regards to it being messy I have no comment to make, Maybe it is but is it hurting the development of ideas by being messy? or would it take much trouble to tidy it up?

Anyway what I do want to comment on is the "trustee's for certain fora" viewpoint.
I'd rather see people selected because they are known to have boards.ie's best interests at heart, boards in ites entirety and not just particular fora.

Sparks

While I live the aesthetics of a more minimal solution, maybe it just has to be that messy. I mean, it's trying to work out a people problem rather than a math problem, and people are just plain messy.

Overheal

OutlawPete wrote: »

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

Thats not how it works. And that discussion was had, if you recall:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055849303

Also, using After Hours as an example, who doesn't at some point post in or read After Hours? I post in there a lot myself.

If a user feels strongly about in issue, for example that may pertain specifically to the photography forum, the lack of a Photography forum trustee doesn't stop them from having a word in.

My name is URL

OutlawPete wrote: »

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

Thanks for the thought but tbh I don't see what I could add to FF by being a 'trustee' that I can't add in FF Public.. I've only posted in there a couple of times anyway.

Imho there's probably already too many 'trustees' given that anyone is able to post in the Public section, and assuming that anyone that does post there has their points taken into consideration

This is the best username ever used here

OutlawPete wrote: »

I think Feedforward is a great idea but I'd just like to give a little Feedback on Feedforward if that's okay.

I can see that a mountain of work has been put in, honestly I can, but it all seems to be a little complex and not very user friendly.

Could it possibly be tidied up somewhat?

Prehaps easier said than done but at the moment, it just all seems to be a tad overwhelming to be hit with so many Stickies (why are they stickies to begin with?) and the 'One Post Per Person' vs 'Free For all' threads really do come across as overkill.

Can't we just have one thread for each issue?

Also, with regards to the Trustee list in Feedforwad Private.

Only a few months back there were threads asking and discussing precisely what people felt that the criteria for choosing Trustees should be. Many excellent points were made, well supported points at that.

Now I look at that list and wonder if any After Hours Non-Mod Trustees have been chosen at all or were all the points made regarding what people felt the Trustee criteria should be, just ignored?

I see Snyper is there, which is cool - but is he there as a Trustee for AH?

If so, is just one Non-Mod Trustee enough for After Hours, the busiest of all the forums (fora if you must) on Boards?

Considering the percentage of Feedback threads that stem from AH issues, I would suggest at least one more AH Trustee would be appointed.

Personally, I would like to see My Name Is URL given Trustee status and write access to Feedforward.

6th, Billy the squid. And many others. All been there Bro.

You are not the first, nor the last. Nor stuff.

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

Thats not how it works. And that discussion was had, if you recall:

If I recall??

I addressed that discussion in my OP, it was that thread that had me naively believing that Trustee's would be chosen that would represent the average user.

There was a lot of talk (which was well supported) about how Trustee's should be selected that had little to do with the running of the site (ie; non-mods) but nonetheless gave a lot back to the site in other ways and could discuss and critique other opinions without losing the head.

When I look at the Trustee list, I don't see names there that would suggest Trustee selection has been any different to moderator selection to be honest.

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

I'd rather see people selected because they are known to have boards.ie's best interests at heart, boards in ites entirety and not just particular fora.

Why would the best interests of After Hours, not be in the best interests of Boards as a whole?

I feel the same about Bargain Alerts or any other section of Boards that represents a very large slice of Boards activity.

It would seem natural to me that some regular non-mod contributers from these forums be Trustees, not just to represent their forum but more to make sure that regular users in the busiest sections of Boards are represented.

I realise that all users can post in FFPublic but if being a Trustee is not a big issue, then why was there so much talk about it?

My name is URL wrote: »

.. assuming that anyone that does post there has their points taken into consideration

Well, I guess only time will tell and that is the crux of the issue.

If points are taken on Board in FFPublic from all members and not just skimmed over based on who makes them, then who the Trustees are will indeed be a non-issue.

RopeDrink wrote: »

.. considering the place is brand spanking new, you have to expect Mess for now considering the scale and scope of what we seek to achieve from it.

Fair enough.

Nevyn

Miffed you haven't been asked/considered ?

OutlawPete

Thaedydal wrote: »

Miffed you haven't been asked/considered ?

No, why do you ask?

I have already said who I would have wanted to be selected as a trustee.

Nevyn

I asked cos I was curious, thanks for answering.

Dohnny Jepp

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why would the best interests of After Hours, not be in the best interests of Boards as a whole?
.

IMO, the forum someone posts in is irrelevant.

Look at it this way,

user 1:Intelligent, good reasoning and can see an issue from all angles. Doesn't often read AH but as he is a frequent user of boards, he knows what its about.

user 2: Intelligent but gets caught up in debates and can't see from issues for other point of views. Is a regular user of AH.

Which of these two users would be more helpful in generating and and implementing ideas?

Although user 1 is not a regular whilst user 2 is, user 1 would be more beneficial to AH because he is better equipped to make a more encompassing reccomendation/decision.

AckwelFoley

FF was not designed to to gather a crack team of representatives from each forum or user type as such, however they did im sure try to get a representation of the forum community when selecting trustees, it was itself members albeit moderators that suggested and debated the list of trustees

Being able to debate a point with ample rational and offer a few constructive suggestions towards a solution without an agenda or bias is also important if not paramount.

I fail to meet that above criteria.

Im there as eye candy

OutlawPete

Dohnny Jepp wrote: »

user 2: Intelligent but gets caught up in debates and can't see from issues for other point of views. Is a regular user of AH.

I agree User 1 is better but we are not just limited to those two choices.

User two would be unsuitable anyway as they "get caught up in debates and can't see from issues for other point of views".

There are many members that have been AH regulars for years that are very suitable for Trustee status, post in Feedback regularly and have always presented their side of the debate while respecting the opposing view, in unison.

RopeDrink wrote: »

FFor will not base itself around specific Forums

That is NOT what I am suggesting here, far from it.

RopeDrink wrote: »

It's for adressing site issues and discussing possible largely agreed on solutions between members, regardless of where they visit on the site.

Of course, but I feel that it would be fitting if someone could look at the Trustee list and see that it contains the the odd name of ordinary members from right across Boards.

RopeDrink wrote: »

It may be the most used Forum on the site but Boards.ie =/= AfterHours ..

Why do you keep exaggerating my point; I relaise that After Hours does not equal Boards.

Again, my point is that it would have been apt to see that there was more than one long time regular poster (of which I am not) of the busiest section of Boards appointed as one of the long list of Trustees.

This point was raised when discussing what members felt that the Trustee criteria should be, but now seems to have been ignored.

I too would prefer a more level headed trustee that has never really used After Hours but is excellent at putting forth their point and reasoning with others, than an AH regular that has tunnel vision and throws their toys out of the pram when they don't get their way.

However, I do not think 'Longtime After Hours contributer' & 'Levelheaded intelligent Boards member' are all that mutually exclusive, far from it in fact.

dr.bollocko

All the classic rock forum posters fully support this agenda and in addition request their representation present in FF.

Overheal

So far we've had quite a few people step up and use the Feedforward Public platform. Their views are often taken under consideration. They have so far come from hell knows what fora to discuss everything from images in quotes to privacy and security matters.

The fact of the matter thus far has been that if posters have had in issue in an area of the site they've stepped up and discussed it. Like the blasted signatures.

I digress. I guess I just don't understand the issue here. In precisely what way do you feel the list is lopsided?

Again, my point is that it would have been apt to see that there was more than one long time regular poster (of which I am not) of the busiest section of Boards appointed as one of the long list of Trustees.

Who is this one person? I could easily withdraw half a dozen from the list. Probably more. Mods Admins and Users, clean and tainted track records.

Put "Long Term" into relativistic meaning.

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

* We cannot force people to become trustee's

I don't doubt what you are saying but it seems odd to me that users that have been so vocal in Feedback over the years would not wish to step up and become a Trustee if asked.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Some people actually refused to participate, which we can understand & respect.

Perfectly understandable.

However, as I posted in the 'Criteria for selecting Trustees' thread, I would have liked there to be some form of nomination process for Trustees, which people could have opted out of had they so wished.

I realise that not all forums on Boards could have their own Trustee, as that would mean there would be somewhere in the region of over a thousand of them

I also don't think that it should be a 'popularity vote' per se, but I do feel that the pool from which Admin selectedsome of the Trustees, should have come from some form of nomination process.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Do consider that quite a lot of people who where asked may have actually been AH regulars, not that it'd have mattered in the sligthest where they post.

Well, I think it matters.

I don't think it matters to any great degree what I think I might add, but this is Feedback and so that is all I am trying to give here.

RopeDrink wrote: »

There are no 'representatives' as such as we aren't trying to cater for specific Forums, but site issues.

I believe that it is important to have the busiest sections of Boards represented in FFP by people that frequent these sections regularly, just my opinion, but that's what I feel.

If there was a McDonald's convention tomorrow in the Four Seasons and they had regular customer representatives from their branches attending to iron out any issues that keep cropping up, but yet the they don't have customer representatives from their busiest branches, then inevitably issues will be missed.

Now I am sure that they will still iron out problems at ALL branches based on dealing with the problems that have cropped up at the smaller ones, but without doubt, the busier branches would have quite unique issues which would need addressing, even if they are not really a problem at the smaller branches.

Now, I know that there are many Mods from all the busiest sections of Boards on that Trustee list, but my only problem is that there is no non-mod voices from these forums in there, not many non-mods overall for whatever reason actually.

Overheal wrote: »

Their views are often taken under consideration. They have so far come from hell knows what fora to discuss everything from images in quotes to privacy and security matters.

Yes, but that is FF Public.

I applaud the concept and premise of what FF is and hopes to be.

I have only made two suggestions there so far and one has been adopted (higher KB in the sigs) and the other hasn't (nomination of the pool of users Admin choose Trustees from ).

Overheal wrote: »

In precisely what way do you feel the list is lopsided?

I just don't feel that the average user is represented.

In the discussion thread on what people felt that the criteria should be for choosing Trustees, it came accross (to me at least) that what was wanted was a few members to become Trustees that may not exactly be Moderator material.

Members who could objectively debate and offer a fresh take on things and not just the usual Mod / Admin one.

Yet, give or take four or five names, the Trustee list reads like a Mod / Admin directory:

--amadeus--
-Chris-
Agent Smith
AnCatDubh
Asiaprod
Asok
Beruthiel
Bond-007
bonkey
BuffyBot
CabanSail
chris
Cloud
Conor
convert
D4RK ONION
Darragh
Dav
Des
DeVore
Doctor DooM
donegalfella
Dord
Dr Galen
dr.bollocko
Dub13
dudara
Evil Phil
fozzle
Gordon
GuanYin
Hill Billy
jor el
kbannon
Kinetic^
koolkid
Lemming
LoLth
Lucy Lu
MiCr0
Mr E
muffler
nesf
nouggatti
oscarBravo
Overheal
P. Breathnach
Paul
pickarooney
Ponster
Poor Uncle Tom
psni
r3nu4l
rainbow kirby
Red Alert
regi
RopeDrink
Ross
sceptre
Scofflaw
seamus
Sharpshooter
Silverfish
smashey
snyper
Sparks
Sparky
Spear
Steve
tbh
Thaedydal
The Recliner
Time Magazine
Tom Dunne
Trojan
trout
uberwolf
Wibbs
Will
Zaph

The Recliner

OutlawPete wrote: »

Yet, give or take four or five names, the Trustee list reads like a Mod / Admin directory:

Yup it does

As far as I know Admins were all given access by default

But the mainreason it reads like that is because despite time passing quickly the action of the forum hasn't, it is still in the early stages and we are only coming up to its first couple of big decisions being actioned

From what I can tell it was felt that in order to iron out any kinks in the process that it should mainly be Mods and Admins so that thread would stay on topic and useful discussion would ensue

After the first couple of issues are dealt with some people might drop out but more people will be added, these will in general come from the non Mod/Admin population and peopel will be added and removed as the discussion is relevant to their interests

P. Breathnach

The Recliner wrote: »

... After the first couple of issues are dealt with some people might drop out but more people will be added, these will in general come from the non Mod/Admin population and peopel will be added and removed as the discussion is relevant to their interests

Wha'? Being invited to be a Trustee has been a high point in my life. Are you implying that I might be casually discarded on nothing more than a whim?

One thing I do not go along with: the idea that Trustees represent any group within boards.ie rather than the broader community. I do not think to represent the forums in which I am most active, nor do I think those who participate in those forums would accept me as representing them (I get into a lot of arguments, most of which are conducted in a fairly civil way).

My understanding is that I was invited to take part because I am an active member, broadly onside in the sense that I do not set out to cause trouble, and I have opinions on many things, some of which might not be part of a consensus. I could have misunderstood, and I might be here as window-dressing -- but I don't think so, because there is the constant danger that I might disagree with just about anybody.

[I sometimes wonder if Trustee is the best label; perhaps Trusty might describe the role better.]

The Recliner

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Wha'? Being invited to be a Trustee has been a high point in my life. Are you implying that I might be casually discarded on nothing more than a whim?

Nope, I didn't intend too anyway

I know I have no right to remain with access if I am not contributing anything to the place so wouldn't have a problem if it was taken away, I asked for access initially because I thought I could help in the setting up phase, depending on what topics are up for discussion in future I may be of no further use

But I do think there is good reason for people to be added for specific discussions that might only have relevance to them

I know there was a problem for the Photography forum when the Boards terms of use changed, in future it would be an idea to have people from specific forums included in discussion that might directly impact them

In general though I agree that people are not there to represent forums but are there because they can have/had a positive impact on Boards but I think in some cases it might be necessary to become forum specific

Again I am only speaking from my own point of view and am probably way off the mark for what DeVore has in mind

OutlawPete

RopeDrink wrote: »

Many many people put out names of users who they felt had the drive to work on what FFor is trying to represent, and those people had been asked, of which some/most I'm sure accepted ..

I never seen an opportunity to put forward a name tbh.

If I had, I most certainty would have as I had two or three names that I would have liked to see have write access to FF Private.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Again, considering your main gripe is largely aimed at AH ..

It's not that I feel AH is a more important section of Boards than all others, it's just that it's all I know since I joined the site.

So when I look at the list, naturally I am looking to see names that I feel would represent the parts of Boards I frequent and hopefully give a non-mod voice while there to the decision making.

RopeDrink wrote: »

The only impact FFor had on applicants and 'suggested' trustee's was to close the doors on adding more users when a certain limit was reached.

Wasn't that limit reached very fast though, considering who was automatically added to it?

RopeDrink wrote: »

Once again, there are no forum representatives because discussing specific Forums is not what FFor is there for.

I understand that FF's purpose is not to discuss specific forums, but it is inevitable that certain issues will effect some forums more than others.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Now, turn your point on it's head... If AH had representatives, for whatever reason, then why not have, oh I don't know... Representatives for 'Comics' forum... Or 'Ballyfermot College' forum? And if we had them, what would be the point when any issue discussed on FFor is likely a web-wide discussion, not a contained discussion? It's all rather futile.

I addressed this in my last post; I do not think that all forums on Boards should have their own non-mod Trustee with write access to FF Private, as that would mean there would need to be over a thousand of them.

However, I do think that there should be around a dozen forums that should have a Trustee though, the busiest ones.

RopeDrink wrote: »

Like Overheal, I really struggle to see the issue with this at all.

Well, I think it boils down to me wishing to see some well regraded common members have somewhat of a role in FF Private.

That is what was discussed in the Criteria thread and many members seemed to have that viewpoint then and not so much now, for whatever reason.

I just want to see more names on that list that are not Mods, names that I feel would add to the decision making and so give users a sense that their opinions matter.

Feed Forward Public is great and all but if at the end of the day the decision is made in FF Private, then it really is just the Mod Forum for public viewing.

I believe a certain amount non-mod Trustees should be nominated by fellow Boards members.

I don't always feel that a popularity vote is the way to go, it's a private site after-all but in certain instances I do and this most certainly is one of them.

Admin could still have their say on who the Trustees are that get appointed but just that they would have to select them from a pool of five or so members that have been nominated by the users of Boards.

I know that there is not really a democracy on Boards but in this one area, I feel their should be.

RopeDrink wrote: »

This is appreciated, don't think you're being scolded for your questions or anything :cool: It's nice to see more interest in the system considering it's still taking baby-steps! And yes, this is FeedBack, and threads like this well help give more understanding/awareness of the project at hand and/or help improve it in the future.

Cheers.

The Recliner wrote: »

But the mainreason it reads like that is because despite time passing quickly the action of the forum hasn't, it is still in the early stages and we are only coming up to its first couple of big decisions being actioned

I appreciate that, genuinely.

The Recliner wrote: »

After the first couple of issues are dealt with some people might drop out but more people will be added, these will in general come from the non Mod/Admin population and peopel will be added and removed as the discussion is relevant to their interests

Excellent.

My name is URL

I agree with Pete's view that the average boards user has little representation within the 'trustee' group. Those within may be what boards is trying to define as it's 'average user' but that's a different kettle of fish altogether, and one which in my own view doesn't say a whole lot about the view that those in charge have for the real 'average user'

DeV himself proclaimed that it is elitist group, or something to that effect.. I can't find the post where he said it however. That whole separatist agenda is more damaging to FF than it is beneficial imo.. how you can say that FF is about incorporating people's ideas and addressing their concerns when at the same time there is an obvious disdain shown towards a large % of the userbase?

The whole thing seems to me like a committee of mates; chin-wagging & patting each other on the back for reaching decisions that would have been reached just as easily if no 'trustee' group existed.

That's just my own opinion of course

Overheal

Who do you consider 'well regarded'?

I'm a registered user; not a mod. I post, frequently and often, in After Hours.

And like I said im not the only one on that list that meets that criteria.

So again I'm not sure what the issue is. Unless its because I'm a yank (:mad:;))

Jazzy

um, what does feedforward do exactly? just seems like feedback when i look at it

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

Who do you consider 'well regarded'?

Perhaps it would just be necessary for Admin to have some regard and respect for Trustees put forward by users, even if they don't necessarily agree with them all the time.

There are many non-moderators who contribute to the site and Feedback regularly and have done so for years.

They are articulate, can see issues objectively and are regularly spot on with their views.

They should be 'well regraded' by fellow users of Boards though, that is for certain and I feel that the two or three names I had in mind, very much fit that criteria.

Overheal wrote: »

I'm a registered user; not a mod.

You Mod FeedForward, you are a Mod.

Overheal

OutlawPete wrote: »

Perhaps it would just be necessary for Admin to have some regard and respect for Trustees put forward by users, even if they don't necessarily agree with them all the time.

There are many non-moderators who contribute to the site and Feedback regularly and have done so for years.

They are articulate, can see issues objectively and are regularly spot on with their views.

They should be 'well regraded' by fellow users of Boards though, that is for certain and I feel that the two or three names I had in mind, very much fit that criteria.

And they can post in FFP. Thats the function of FFP.

You Mod FeedForward, you are a Mod.

I Facilitate the decision making process, do a bit of housekeeping and spend an optimal amount of time harassing DeV and Dav to make their minds up... but its important to distinguish that I was not a Facilitator before I was a Trustee. I am also not part of the Moderator usergroup. I am a Registered User.

um, what does feedforward do exactly? just seems like feedback when i look at it

The inverse of Feedback: forward thinking constructive thought, as oppose to backward looking critique. Both are useful but are best served as separate entities.

Jazzy

Overheal wrote: »

The inverse of Feedback: forward thinking constructive thought, as oppose to backward looking critique. Both are useful but are best served as separate entities.

looks the exact same as feedback to me, just less spam. so theres feedforward, feedforward public and 'facilitators'... not think theres maybe a bit too much red tape? It just seems to me as a place certain people can go to and say whatever about how the site should be run and be immune from public criticism. I dont think it will really make that much of a difference to day-to-day goings on, but it will help nail people on help desk and feedback

WindSock

Personally I don't see a point to having many of those trustees. I think some, like myself just put their hands up for the sake of it. I bailed out though as I knew really I wouldn't get involved that much. I'm more of a Feedback kinda person. If it aint broke...
I prefer being able to have discussions with both users and mods. I don't see a point to restricting each from the other unless it is in relation to moderating duties.

AckwelFoley

WindSock wrote: »

If it aint broke...
.

Apply that to cars and perhaps the only car on the road today would be a model T Ford, available of course in a number of colours as long as that colour you want is black.

"If it aint broke" is a nice saying, however there are issues on boards.ie that members have problems with, if there were no issues, then you'd have no feedback to enjoy...

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

And they can post in FFP. Thats the function of FFP.

As I posted above:

OutlawPete wrote: »

Feed Forward Public is great and all but if at the end of the day the decision process is made in FF Private, then it really is just the Mod Forum for public viewing.

Overheal

Technically the Decision isn't made on Boards at all. Its made at the head office.

OutlawPete

Overheal wrote: »

Technically the Decision isn't made on Boards at all. Its made at the head office.

That just solidifies my point even further so.