Results 1 to 20 of 43
28-04-2013, 01:29 PM #1
[VS] New "Outfit Leader" Role & Responsibilities?
Outfit Leadership beyond in-game organisation
This is a discussion I wanted to start a while back, but just didn't get around to it. The above roles work well as a means of highlighting certain members who have taken on various responsibilities for in-game organisation. What those roles do not do (beyond the joke rank I gave myself) is to highlight various people who have taken on responsibilities for driving / organising / supporting the outfit in a much wider sense.
Basically, it is no longer tenable (and hasn't been for sometime) for my voice to carry the weight it seems to. On a purely mechanical level it is somewhat absurd that a lot of the outfit levers, pulleys and switches can be accessed only by me. In more general the outfit has a number of figureheads who have taken on the responsibilities for driving the outfit and this needs to be recognised.
Decisions will still be made as a community. We will still discuss things in public in the forums, meetings and whilst playing. But what this has lacked are defined points where someone says "Ok, I've read the discussion, spoken to people, and given the general feeling on this issue we will, as an outfit, now do this." In general I have been the one to do this. But there needs to be more people doing this than just me. What I hoped would happen would be that people would just do this. That they would have the gumption to just forge ahead. Some people have, and thank you. But by and large it seems to have been the case that members, who are otherwise excellent at supporting the outfit, have been reluctant in saying "Ok, we now do this, not that."
This has lead to organisational inertia that I have let become a larger problem than I should have done.
Part of this reluctance (I am assuming) stems from a lack of highlighted recognition. It seems to be the case that people wonder what right does a member have to make bold statements about how things will work in the outfit. I would like it that everyone felt they had that right (I feel they do). But that hasn't been the case.
What I would like to suggest is a new system. Similar to the Balloon Leader system. Whereby we, as a community, recognise people who take leadership roles in supporting the outfit. Through such recognition I hope these people will then feel more able to make bolder decisions about 'how we do things' and feel comfortable (and able) to take on the responsibility to push the outfit.
(I should add here that when it comes decisions about TACGIR, TACGIR leaders have entire sovereignty over that. Although when discussing various responsibilities we are working out here, we can maybe start defining what responsibilities TACGIR leaders have with respects to outfit organisation and what non-TACGIR leaders have that differs.)
What we need, in summary:
- A means of the community nominating / supporting those who they recognise as being welcomed driving forces for the outfit.
- Some way to designate responsibilities people have taken on. I feel these can be as specific to individuals as we like to make them. Though I would like some kind of base list of responsibilities for outfit leaders. Such as really simple things (like access website admin accounts and various in-game mechanical permissions).
(Questions: Do we want individual, tailored roles. Or a basic 'leadership' role that can be tailored with various 'portfolios' for different aspects of outfit organisation?)
- A short, general guidance on what kind of authority is invested in these members. Because that's probably the most important crux of this issue. This is primarily about, as a community, deciding upon outfit members we trust to support them by giving them the authority to make decisions and make changes.
- Something that avoids the potential for inter-personal bickering, for people setting themselves up to be hated by the community, for there to be gripes and grumbles about the people that we have invested with these positions.
I can't think of any egos that would be a problem. But I have seen too many online communities fracture because of inflated yet fragile egos amongst those who are supposed to be taking responsibilities. People afraid to step on toes, or people too uppity to deal with their toes being stepped on. Of communities seething because they feel like they're being directed by someone whose every decision they agree with. Etc. etc. Many of you, I guess, will have seen these problems before.
My hope is that an emphasis on outfit leaders taking on responsibility to the outfit being a responsibility that has been offered to them by the outfit should avoid some of this.
I am still incredibly proud, grateful, and still amazed at how non-acrimonious things have been in the outfit. The very last thing I want to do is cause rifts through these changes. So let's make sure that we have this in mind when we decide how outfit leadership is going to work.
So, please kick of discussion on the above. What do you think outfit leadership should look like? How should it be bestowed? What kinds of responsibilities does it involve? What do we need to do to make sure that decisions of outfit leaders are followed and agreed upon? And anything else that comes to mind on the issue?
Last edited by Cooper; 11-06-2013 at 12:52 AM.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
28-04-2013, 01:31 PM #2
I will add that I will remove the calf rank and set everyone who is a calf to "Giraffe" when I get back to the game tomorrow. We no longer need a rank that distinguishes new players now that invitations are limited to beacons. Also, should we rename beacons? It seems like a too-specific name now that the SL / RO role is increasingly more involved as we increase the amount of tactical play.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
28-04-2013, 03:03 PM #3
we could go for the olde sargeant and leutenant shtick.
anyway, I support this, especially with people like cmaster and reverie and etc. putting in a lot of work on the sidelines. if rps keeps growing we will need it as introduction to the various members.
and then theres people like me that do a lot on the forums but only occasionally tend to lead due to time restraints. (though I have to admit, I cant play grunt anymore. probably a bad sign for me personally)
either way, yes more roles yes.
28-04-2013, 03:22 PM #4
Sounds good. Something along the lines of "this person is a sub-leader" and that it is designated as such is pretty much all that's needed. Why? So that they can actually make decisions and stuff, ad hoc - with authority (I hear "BY THE POWER VESTED IN ME BY VANU" in my head when I write this).
We discuss our way to everything. It takes forever and sometimes it's very much beneficial to have one or two people that can just say "we're going to do it this way" and then we roll with that. Totally free anachodemocracy is not a very good way to roll all the time in situations where 50+ people have a discussion and a decision needs to be made so that the primary purpose - playing the game - can continue. That's been the issue a few times and it is the mentioned organisational inertia when there is only one true leader and not true democratic leadership spread out. We've had a very vertical organisation.
That said though I personally don't know how much of a sub-lead or whatever I will be in the near future, and I don't like to be a major part in discussions when I haven't been playing and know the current state of the outfit. With the max update coming soon I will be back though, and I'll be up for being designated sub-lead person for TACGIR or whatever, if you would like that.
And yes - beacons should now be people that are up to lead squads imo. Again, haven't played much, sorry, but it seemed Coffeetable and other PLs were pushing for more leading in herd platoons as well, so that's my experience of it.Find me on the Steams
28-04-2013, 06:05 PM #5
Possible renames from Giraffe Beacon: Giraffe Co-Ordinator? [SLs co-ordinate tactics, ROs co-ordinate movement and liasons co-ordinate inter-outfit comms], Giraffe Compass, Giraffe Organiser, Giraffe Dog [like Sheep Dog], Giraffe Lighthouse.
I really think that the primary necessity the higher up you go in the ranks is confidence. That's something that is far easier to determine with other people, with out-right assertiveness generally winning over a small voice that stands up every-so-often. That's not to say that the latter wouldn't be as good, but I would say it was indicative of the likelihood of success. As has been mentioned, platoon leaders really need to have confidence and authority. Democratisation is fine when we're planning out greater plans of attack, but once we get moving, there needs to be a clearly defined voice with direction. As I've said before, a good leader who makes a bad decision with authority (and then hopefully can rectify the situation in any available manner) is one I prefer to one over someone else who dithers with decision making, which in turns tends to open up 'back-seat leading'.
So long as those people are in the right spot, I can't see too much of a problem with our leadership. We seem to have people who have got into roles that they enjoy or are comfortable with and so long as there are other people that can share/replace if necessary, all is well.
28-04-2013, 06:44 PM #6
Suggested names for ranks:
- Giraffe Officer: SLs, ROs, Comms Liaisons
- Corps Officer: Platoon Leaders (as in Corps of Giraffes, the collective noun for a group of giraffes)
- Tower Officer: General outfit organisation/leadership (as in Tower of Giraffes, the alternative collective noun for a group of giraffes)
- Supreme Giraffe/Giraffe in Charge
As for us operating as a democracy. No, we don't. We operate as an oligarchic meritocracy, and participation in that oligarchy is determined on the merit of who talks the most and who remembers what is written in which thread of the forums. It worked as a democracy in the beginning, but as a lot of the initial members have taken a hiatus or completely given up on the game, a portion of the unspoken and unwritten understandings that comprise our structure have been lost or changed. Institutional knowledge is hidden within individuals and scattered among obscure threads. Also, leadership changes occur behind the scenes, and unbeknownst to even those that are stepping up or down, as previous leaders have expended their "talkative reserves" (sic!), and others fill in the void.
Democracy requires a clear understanding of how and why things work. Rules are decided upon by both debate and vote, not tradition, and are set there, so that everyone and anyone can review them and suggest changes. It requires a lot of work from all members of the group, more so than any other form of organisation. Decision making may be delegated, but this is done explicitly.
I really need to stop over-analysing stuff...
Last edited by MrEclectic; 28-04-2013 at 06:51 PM.
28-04-2013, 09:32 PM #7
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
Re: rank names, I like Quanta's suggestion, Giraffe Sergeant for what is now Beacon.
Seems descriptive of what the role actually involves (corralling the general population and providing their link to the chain of command) and doesn't feel as authoritarian/officious as 'officer'. Plus it has a bit more olde army character about it, which I like.
29-04-2013, 12:09 AM #8
Im not too interested in the names that we use for our ranks, but its a good idea to have this kind of decision making role definitely.
Dealing with many of the issues and discussions for setting up several of our systems has been fairly difficult in some cases.
Because of this there have been cases where people have tried to make decisions and then have others interject another opposing opinion, or question why the decision has been made. Im not saying that this is a bad thing, expecially if the decision could be considered questionable, but its pretty hard to move forward with anything in a timely manner when this happens.
It could be much more beneficial to have somebody make decisions, and then simply roll with that for a while until people recognise the faults in that decision and iterates.
I dont have much experience dealing with such issues, because ive not made any of the important decisions, but I have seen many a case where people go round in circles. I have even been part of this circle of discussion before, and often without cooper to step in and say "lets roll with this idea", the decisions just dont get made.
The only example I can directly use is that of the (much less important) graphical stuff that I have been involved with. We all know that this has taken an excess of time, and though this is partially due to the fact that I have been dealing with it when I have had time, I think the reasons above are a large part of this.
There have been times where I myself have tried to make a decision and say "right, lets move in this direction", but have had arguments against towards the decisions im making. Again, im not trying to say anything against whether or not those decisions were right or wrong, im just saying that this is part of the reason that its taken so long to come to a final product.
Another aspect of this is that, often when I have tried to make decisions or move things foreword, I have been compared on occasion to a dictator. I have no problem with these observations, and the issue itself was settled after I had explained my motives. The only reason I mention it here, is because it is a prime example of what can and often will happen if there arent people with the level of authority to carry a plan through. I know that many people here have been commanding enough to carry through with plans without much opposition, but it seems that sometimes this isnt the case.
Luckily, we have now ended up with a bloody nice finished product thanks to everybody who participated, the various iterations, and Rizlars final compositions. The thing is, this did take longer than some would deem necessary, especially for something that many would consider not that important.
Needless to say, then, that I support this idea.
I have posted this previously in another thread, I will post it here for ease of access:
29-04-2013, 12:43 AM #9
Fairly early on I did explicitly respond to a discussion (through PMs I think) that I didn't want things to turn into an oligarchy. I was very reluctant to start appointing people to positions of authority, preferring to institute as little hierarchy in the running of the outfit as possible (rather than in the playing of the game, which needs hierarchies). Despite this, and despite attempts to expand the deliberative process as much as possible, we have drifted towards an oligarchy,
The lack of defined rules that exist outside of learned behaviour and community cultures has been core to this move towards an oligarchy. This as well as the outfit guide are an attempt to address that.
I realise I'm making this sound like then outfit was some kind of grand experiment. It really wasn't. I have a general aversion to hierarchical organisation that simply manifested itself in how I organised things here. I have seen blind assumption that authority invested in someone through a given title and a given hierarchical structure is enough to drive groups of people. It seems particularly bad in online communities which lack face to face contact. I wanted to avoid that.
No strict hierarchies is not about having no leaders and no authority. It's about that leadership and authority being contextual, being bestowed upon (rather than enforced) and open to question.
It is the need for that kind of leadership (contextual, bestowed, open) as opposed to the slow drift towards an oligarchy of the active, persuasive and culturally informed that led to the need for this (late) discussion.
This need is borne out of a fairly pragmatic concern about 'getting stuff done'. An alternative I considered was to hash out a agreed upon that governed a deliberative process where decisions were made through consensus. This would mean that after both forum discussions and outfit chats we could know when decisions were made and action was to be taken. The problem we lack with the deliberative democratic approach we started with is that we never agreed upon a system to define when deliberation was over. Which is Ride's point about how we talk all the bloody time and no one ever says "ok, so now we have decided to do this."
The problem with a system for a deliberative style of decision making is that it requires effort from a large number of people. The alternative to having named leaders which is of streamlining / providing rules on a deliberative system is that things would simply stall again. The level of interest in what is a hobby is not enough to support the approach we used to take and get done things that need to get done to support nearing 1,000 members.
On this subject, whatever the outcome of 'outfit leaders' decisions should always be based upon community discussion. I will add this to the outfit guide. We do not stop having outfit chats and we do not stop using these forums to discuss what the outfit should do.
What 'outfit leaders' provides us with are people trusted by outfit members to say "we have discussed this enough now and we will do this. In order to achieve this, please do X Y and Z." and these people should feel they have enough authority to do that and members should feel they are trusted enough to be directions they should follow.
An aside: I am completely aware that more-or-less strict hierarchies are essential when actually playing the game, and we've done a decent job at making sure that we have strict hierarchies when playing tightly and focused and less strict ones where we chat about strategic decisons before they are made when we are playing in a more laid back manner. The issue of authority at stake here is not about PLs and SLs but about outfit leadership in the many activities that take place outside the game.
Last edited by Cooper; 29-04-2013 at 12:55 AM.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
29-04-2013, 09:35 AM #10
Also, communication about the effectivity and style of leadership should be encouraged, so we can replace or add onto the leader "circle".
I vote that next time we hold a discussion about the outfit, we have all the leaders, even just the beacon people (Ill call them sergeants) in on it, and do a japanese style discussion. (where everyone gets to say their thing, starting from lowest rank to highest)
Also Pauly, Im honoured that you think Im "brilliant", you know you get on my nerves on the forums, for no real reason at all, really. So cheers, and hope to see you in the game again soonish.
Last edited by QuantaCat; 29-04-2013 at 11:18 AM.
29-04-2013, 10:40 AM #11
The discussion is veering towards in-game leadership, a few posts thus far have picked up on this.
That is not what this is about. I thought things were going well in terms of in-game leadership? If not, and if there are issues with that, that needs to be addressed separately. If there are issues with PLs being questioned / second guessed that persist, than we need to focus on that as another issue entirely.
I intended this discussion to be out of game leadership. The kind of outfit leadership that directs outfit activities as a whole. This is not intended to offer an "uber rank" that can roll about in game bossing people about on the ground. This is intended to provide people who help shape and drive the outfit to do greater things both recognition and status in order to help this driving force.
My intention with this new position was for it to be, in game terms, on the same level as Balloon. Because whoever is supreme giraffe (when we need them) or multi-platoon leader can be drawn from the pool of Balloons. In game-play terms the new rank should fit in wherever they're playing; if SL then thy do SL job, if PL than PL, if Giraffe grunt then grunting about. No special changes there. It's only on out of game or 'meta outfit concerns' that I thought the new position would b useful.
If there are issues to do with a percieved lack of authority or leadership organisation in everyday gameplay than someone needs to write up those concerns and get a discussion going, because I was not aware that things were as bad as they used to be.
I thought I had made this distinction clear in the first post, but I'll go over it later and edit it to make sure.
Last edited by Cooper; 29-04-2013 at 10:44 AM.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
29-04-2013, 11:15 AM #12
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Yeah, I don't think we have any need for ranks that reflect position during play.
PL/SL/RO are all important, (more so than outfit ranks I'd say) but also nothing to do with outfit ranks.
I'd also say that day-to-day, we're an Anarchist set up rather than anything else.
I also don't think we really have a problem, other than we need someone else with Cooper's admin rights for the outfit in game, so that we don't rely on him too much. The only other time I've really seen "Leader" authority being necessary is with he outfit logo thing, where people were happy to design and talk themselves to death over, partly because there was a small group who cared intensely, while the majority had very little to say on it.
So yeah, give people like Eso and maybe JG a top level in-game rank.
Encourage anybody and everybody to step up where they feel appropriate.
Keep up with the push to document things better, so we don't end up with new people feeling the "tyranny of tradition" that Eclectic alludes to.
29-04-2013, 11:19 AM #13
I edited my bits about ingame leadership out. I guess I didnt really read it all very thoughtfully, sorry about that.
29-04-2013, 02:57 PM #14
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
Still like Giraffe Sergeant tho. :P
29-04-2013, 04:54 PM #15
However, how likely are we to actually document our deliberative process properly?
I would prefer a system where people stepped up and took responsibility for certain processes to do with the outfit, where those stepping up were whoever wants most to drive that process. But this hasn't always happened really. It requires that we specify a) how exactly we turn discussions into decisions so that we don't end up with the inertia we currently have and b) a system whereby people stepping forward is properly recorded / noted and actually ends up with stuff happening.
If people have any thoughts on how we get a system in place where the discussion - decision - action processes take place more effectively that does not require us to offer positions of directorship to individuals but rather push that process collectively, I would be excited to hear ideas on that. because I'm increasingly unconvinced that we are industrious enough with the current set up for the size we have reached.Originally Posted by CROCONOUGHTKEY
29-04-2013, 11:07 PM #16
Im more concerned about how people come across in game if im frankly honest, becausue thats what I think of as those peoples personalities.
I tend not to give a shit what people percieve when im typing in a forum type of setup, which is partially why it seems people can get annoyed with my blatant lack of giving a shit when typing my viewpoint. I type, I click post, and I dont think about how it comes across, but dont let that be confused with my actual sentiment.
I do often type in an authoratative or blunt/straight to the point way, but only because I feel it is effective to communicate that way. I tend to keep light hearted "typing" to the more casual and silly threads, and anywhere else ill tend to hammer my point home to the point of being annoying.
This goes for everybody who have been frustrated by the way I structure a forum post. Dont take the style personally, and dont feel like I am imposing or enforcing, just take it at face value. Its pretty hard to judge the sentiment of a thread without putting real effort into the structure of the post, and frankly I dont have the time nor patience to do that on a forum just for the sake of not offending. I have explained this in the past when people have misinterpreted me, but I apologise in advance if this has been or will be you.
On topic notes:
The above is actually a good point from a leadership perspective. We need people with authority to be able to say "we are doing this" without people becoming offended that somebody else has decided to make a decision. Its possible that people will feel that "we are equal so why do you get to make decisions" in the current system, and I guess thats true.
Another point from above is that the selected leaders should definitely be people who are capable of being mediators as well as calm and understanding. None of the guys here are immature, but there have been times when people have either been misunderstood, come across particularly bluntly or just been ruthlessly honest (there have been quite a few, and im including myself). It would be a good idea that leaders conduct themselves in a way that avoids any of this kind of stuff, even if they are boiling up inside from rage.
I believe we have a crude system set up for if people have nasty disagreements, but it is important that we make sure that if this should happen with a leader, we are able to have somebody else deal with it subjectively. Its always better to plan for this kind of unlikely/horrible event and be able to sort it out rather than not have a plan and all of hell breaks loose.
Age is also another consideration, though I guess thats not too much of an issue here given we are an alright bunch .
Nothing too important, just things that we could do with considering.
Plan for moving ideas forward:
In hindsight, I should have made two separate threads, but whats done is done.
We definitely need to stick with some kind of system where by somebody, be it leader or any member, suggests a change/idea/whatever, and then creates a brief or proposal in the form of a well thought out post.
From this, there should definitely be some clear and concious decision to appoint maybe 2 people who are in charge of overseeing the idea. I say 2, because it seems like the best solution to the potential closed mindedness of the person wanting to go one way, when another might be better.
It might be a good idea to have one community member and one leader be in control of an idea, for example, though this isnt set in stone tbh. From here, it should be clearly stated who is in control of pushing the thing forward on the main post, and providing any further information that may be necessary for community input, if at all.
Then, people are free to either submit their thoughts/ideas/iterations depending on what it is, whether it be graphics, concepts, plans etc. Perhaps allow 1-2 weeks for submissions of ideas, longer if its a big project, and make sure that people know about it via mumble as well.
When a sufficient number of submissions have been sent in, and ideas have been thrown around, the two people "in charge" as such can scan through it, or if they have been participating, simply compile a list of requirements that seemed to have arisen as well as the major concerns.
At this point, it would be important for those guys to address any concerns, accomodate peoples wishes as best as possible, and propose a series of steps to continue the idea through.
It might be possible to then get more feedback on the conclusions that the two members came to if there is any remaining doubt as to where to go with the idea.
The idea should then be carried out, either by the individuals who proposed it, the overseers, or any volunteers who stepped up during discussion. When this is done, depending on what the 'product' is, it should be tested, i.e. if its a game plan, test it out on the battlefield.. if its a logo, show it to people in use and ask for feedback. etc etc.
Though it might not seem like it given many people viewed the logo stuff as a complete mess, this was the general structure that naturally progressed the logo to where it is now.. Granted, it did take a lot longer than a few weeks, it was basically what happened.
Proposed idea in my original thread - had people propose graphics and more ideas - generally worked towards some loose consensus and had rizlar propose some designs - Cooper compiled a thread of all of the proposed ideas for people to vote and discuss - results of vote were used to create something with features that people wanted and we iterated on peoples concerns and dislikes - Came to a final decision on logo layout - the rest is in future content .
I like to think of it as controlled chaos. In all seriousness though, it needs to be MORE controlled next time, so a system like that above would be moving in the right direction.
Last edited by BasicPauly; 29-04-2013 at 11:23 PM.
29-04-2013, 11:50 PM #17
My first post in this thread. Not from a lack of interest but from a difficult to find things to say tha would bring the discussing forward. I wholeheartedly agree with everyone saying that designated leadership over various aspects of the operation of the outfit is a good idea. I also think Pauly's proposed system should work well for us. Having two people decide on an issue would probably be good to limit the risk of any decisions that could upset a lot of people.
i also agree that these should be people who know and/or care to express themselves diplomatically and avoid posting when in a rage over something or other. Granted, we've had few problems of that character, but it seems important at least when on "official business".
People should be nominated formleadrship positions in recognition of deeds done and maturity and responsibility shown. Nominees should be approved by a fairly large amount of their peers, maybe 5 or so? Elected leaders should be given an area of responsibility or authority (one or more) and their word should weigh heavier on matters concerning these.
What else do we need?
30-04-2013, 03:58 AM #18
I wouldnt say somebodies word should weigh heavier necessarily, because even those people are able to make mistakes or bad decisions, but I agree that they should have some power to drive things forward. Its a difficult one really.
Also, should it be divided by areas? I was thinking that just electing a few general leaders, perhaps using your method, would be better, and specific tasks could be assigned based on other criteria. For example, we could assign responsibilties for projects during a meeting when such roles are necessary, or even simply on the forums based on people volunteering.
Areas or responsibility might leave these roles a bit specific. If two of the people are more interested in a specific area, but one gets assigned something they arent comfortable with, this causes issues. Surely then, its better to have leaders with no assigned role, but that oversee things in a more general sense. Roles for actual projects can be assigned based on a decision at the time?
30-04-2013, 05:43 AM #19
no you misunderstand, not caring about others opinion of onesself is what everyone should do here, especially in an organisational capacity.
the reason I proposed the Japanese system of planning and discussions is that though it might take a long time, it eliminates all form of fear of leadership or fear of peer feedback. (they cant echo what the boss is saying)
my point was rather that you tend to wall of text, sometimes on topics that dont need it. (ie. overanalysing)
brevity in a sea of text is extremely necessary, to get your point across. Some of the others have problems with that too, I think some people are a bit afraid of being misunderstood and just saying "im all for this, how bout we do this now and see if it works. whos with me?"
or in the case of leadership "NOW JUMP, MEATBAGS"
01-05-2013, 05:07 AM #20
Also, the rest were separate points that, had I have posted them separately, would not have been so large. When you condense each thing down it is effectively around four posts, but I posted them all in one go to save time.
1, response to you and others talking about how I post stuff.
2, General points about leadership stuff being a good idea and what we might need to think about.
3, Laying out a potential progression plan for projects.
4, talking about the logo stuff in relation to this.
I know ive done it before for other things which were literally just walls of text, but sometimes its just easier to write it out like that. Definitely takes a lot less effort to skip the editing part :P.
I see what you mean, dont get me wrong. In response to people perhaps being annoyed at this, I have tried to highlight the important bits in recent posts with titles in bold so that people can skip over stuff that they might not want to read.
I hope that I dont get on your nerves as much now, since I have explained my reasons?
Anyway, back on topic: In terms of leadership of planning, theres nothing wrong with potentially having that system for when there is a vocal discussion, though the ticket style thing that I saw last time seemed to work fine for that.
I do feel that we should stick with a standard way of planning and following through on the more involved projects, should one occur. "Brief - design - iterate - test - finalise" type plans are very versatile for many different kinds of project. The proposed idea from me was mainly to point out the idea of having a system where two people would essentially drive it forward, and eliminate many of the problems we have faced.
This method doesnt take any control of design away from the community, but it gives more flexability for the people in charge to make sure it stays on deadline.
Last edited by BasicPauly; 01-05-2013 at 05:12 AM.