As the self-nominations thread suggests, I'm running for TA.
My full platform is with my self-nomination here:
http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=39995
In a nutshell:
1. I want two TAs, one for each platform. Splitting the workload = less stress/person. Less stress = less burnout = more stuff = good for ALFA. If elected, I'll propose a charter change and try to convince someone to act as the other TA while giving my vote on NWN2 issues to the person I get.
2. I want to put my personal work into NWN1, because I'll be better at it. I think the current size of our community and who our current collection of HDMs happen to be would make for some excellent discussion and ideas about content/ improvements/ implementation, so I'll beg them for input, do much of the NWN1 work myself, and teach interested parties how to work on the sort. Upgrading to 1.69 is a must, and I'll do it in the way that requires the fewest changes to our modules.
//edited topic for clarity.
Zelknolf's Summarized TA Platform and Q&A
Moderator: ALFA Administrators
Hi Zelknolf good luck in the election. I've a few questions:
We've done a good deal of work for the NWN2 platform which hasn't been ported back to NWN1. The reverse has also been true with a number of changes recently made by yourself to NWN1 and it looks that it will be true in the future with your proposal.
As I hate seeing any code wasted, what is your plan on making our scripts easily transferable between one platform and another and trying to sustain the idea of 'platform-independence?'
You've mentioned you'd like to create a second Admin wholly devoted to Tech in the NWN2 world and one devoted to the NWN1 world.
How would this differ from having a staff head who dealt with NWN1-specific changes and having another to deal with NWN2-specific additions?
We've done a good deal of work for the NWN2 platform which hasn't been ported back to NWN1. The reverse has also been true with a number of changes recently made by yourself to NWN1 and it looks that it will be true in the future with your proposal.
As I hate seeing any code wasted, what is your plan on making our scripts easily transferable between one platform and another and trying to sustain the idea of 'platform-independence?'
You've mentioned you'd like to create a second Admin wholly devoted to Tech in the NWN2 world and one devoted to the NWN1 world.
How would this differ from having a staff head who dealt with NWN1-specific changes and having another to deal with NWN2-specific additions?
People talk of bestial cruelty, but that's a great injustice and insult to the beasts; a beast can never be so cruel as man, so artistically cruel.
Hey paaz, thanks for questions and all of that jazz.
To the first question, the rotten thing about script-transferability is that someone has to do it, proof read it, test it, and debug it. In my own experience, this is the same process as acquiring a script from, say, nwvault. There're plenty of good things that are worth using there, but it still takes man-hours to make them work for ALFA. I would say, thus, that making scripts transferable between platforms would depend entirely on whoever is doing work on the platform it goes to. If a team cannot afford to put the time into all of that, there is no transferability; the scripts just won't work, plain and simple. I'm sorry to say that the case is, currently, that scripts aren't really transferable; NWN1 lacks personel and NWN2 is crippled with the work load of establishing the basics. I'm also sorry to say that the only feasible counter to this would be to add ranks to our tech teams, and to do that we would need to either lure in gifted people or devote time from our current teams into educating potential members -- risky investment, that.
My plan, personally, would be to call on people who have said they're willing to help and point them at NWN2. Yes, there's work to be done on both platforms, but most NWN1 work is adding toys while most NWN2 work is making the game work, in the basest sense, as ALFA would like it to. On the plus side, tech work is, essentially, a whole bunch of little projects that become horrifying when stacked together. Teaching a bunch of people how to do a few simple tasks each can lighten a burden substantially. Five people writing a function each makes a workable script, I say.
To the second question, there are two parts to the answer:
The first part, and the important part, is accountability. I need only point to the loss of Cipher as TA to show how this works; the man has done great things for NWN2, and the community is going to suffer for the loss. However, technical administrator, as a post, is responsible for both platforms, and the failures of one's subordinates are the failures of oneself -- that's the cruelty of leadership. Things fell through for NWN1, and see who everyone pointed at. That's not right, and it's unfair to expect one person to shoulder that responsibility. Tech work is hard -- it's mind-numbing hours of work staring at a computer screen, where the best tools for progress are notepad, nwscript editor (notepad with colors!), MS word, and the ol' trusty hak utility. Keeping up motivation while people are patting on the back, giving thumbs up, and giving text-emoted hugs for the effort is hard; keeping it up while people are grumping and slandering is nigh impossible. By splitting TA into two independent admins, there is no singular "top of the food chain" who is expected to be accountable for both platforms, and thus each TA need only suffer the stresses and the gripes of the one she/he would actually like to work on.
The second part has to do with functionality. ALFA1 and ALFA2 are at very different stages of development. ALFA1 could use someone who is creative and innovative, who can poke at the game we have and say "Hey, no one's thought of this before. Would you guys (HDMs, so sayeth my platform) be interested in this?" This isn't the case with ALFA2; ALFA2 can use someone who's steady and driven, able to keep at things until the basics work, being that the basic foundations are always the most complicated, and require the most persistence to chase the problems away from. Putting someone who is great for ALFA1 in charge of ALFA2 would be bad for it on account of the mindset, let alone the personal preferences; putting someone who is great for ALFA2 in charge of ALFA1 would have the same problems. Each platform deserves, in my opinion, someone with a good mindset, and with a preference toward the platform.
To the first question, the rotten thing about script-transferability is that someone has to do it, proof read it, test it, and debug it. In my own experience, this is the same process as acquiring a script from, say, nwvault. There're plenty of good things that are worth using there, but it still takes man-hours to make them work for ALFA. I would say, thus, that making scripts transferable between platforms would depend entirely on whoever is doing work on the platform it goes to. If a team cannot afford to put the time into all of that, there is no transferability; the scripts just won't work, plain and simple. I'm sorry to say that the case is, currently, that scripts aren't really transferable; NWN1 lacks personel and NWN2 is crippled with the work load of establishing the basics. I'm also sorry to say that the only feasible counter to this would be to add ranks to our tech teams, and to do that we would need to either lure in gifted people or devote time from our current teams into educating potential members -- risky investment, that.
My plan, personally, would be to call on people who have said they're willing to help and point them at NWN2. Yes, there's work to be done on both platforms, but most NWN1 work is adding toys while most NWN2 work is making the game work, in the basest sense, as ALFA would like it to. On the plus side, tech work is, essentially, a whole bunch of little projects that become horrifying when stacked together. Teaching a bunch of people how to do a few simple tasks each can lighten a burden substantially. Five people writing a function each makes a workable script, I say.
To the second question, there are two parts to the answer:
The first part, and the important part, is accountability. I need only point to the loss of Cipher as TA to show how this works; the man has done great things for NWN2, and the community is going to suffer for the loss. However, technical administrator, as a post, is responsible for both platforms, and the failures of one's subordinates are the failures of oneself -- that's the cruelty of leadership. Things fell through for NWN1, and see who everyone pointed at. That's not right, and it's unfair to expect one person to shoulder that responsibility. Tech work is hard -- it's mind-numbing hours of work staring at a computer screen, where the best tools for progress are notepad, nwscript editor (notepad with colors!), MS word, and the ol' trusty hak utility. Keeping up motivation while people are patting on the back, giving thumbs up, and giving text-emoted hugs for the effort is hard; keeping it up while people are grumping and slandering is nigh impossible. By splitting TA into two independent admins, there is no singular "top of the food chain" who is expected to be accountable for both platforms, and thus each TA need only suffer the stresses and the gripes of the one she/he would actually like to work on.
The second part has to do with functionality. ALFA1 and ALFA2 are at very different stages of development. ALFA1 could use someone who is creative and innovative, who can poke at the game we have and say "Hey, no one's thought of this before. Would you guys (HDMs, so sayeth my platform) be interested in this?" This isn't the case with ALFA2; ALFA2 can use someone who's steady and driven, able to keep at things until the basics work, being that the basic foundations are always the most complicated, and require the most persistence to chase the problems away from. Putting someone who is great for ALFA1 in charge of ALFA2 would be bad for it on account of the mindset, let alone the personal preferences; putting someone who is great for ALFA2 in charge of ALFA1 would have the same problems. Each platform deserves, in my opinion, someone with a good mindset, and with a preference toward the platform.
-
Hialmar
- Fionn In Disguise
- Posts: 3784
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 11:54 am
- Location: Toulouse, France
- Contact:
The problem with adding another admin is that we would have an even number of admins which could block our decision process.
If the TA splitting isn't possible because of that, would you still be willing to work with, let's say, AL as your NWN2 person and take the responsibility for both platforms ?
AL has stated that he is willing to work with you. Are you willing as well in any situation (him as a TA and you as the NWN1 person or the reverse) ?
If the TA splitting isn't possible because of that, would you still be willing to work with, let's say, AL as your NWN2 person and take the responsibility for both platforms ?
AL has stated that he is willing to work with you. Are you willing as well in any situation (him as a TA and you as the NWN1 person or the reverse) ?
Heya Hial,
Firstly, I need to clarify a part of my platform, 'cuz it's a little indirect:
To the first question: yes, I could if none of my plotting works out. The full length of my platform has a 'charter amendment pending' phase in it that I believe could be maintained for an entire TAly tenure. However, if we do end up with a "Zelknolf as TA, Acadius as NWN2 staff head" (or, really, whoever I get, if Acadius isn't too keen on the idea. I do think that each of us is assuming the other is prepared to silly quantities of work and responsibility, being that we're both running for the post.) arrangement, I still plan on using my admin vote on NWN2 issues based on his opinion of the subject, and would beseech you other four admin to allow some unconventional forum access so he might be as informed as possible on those opinions.
To the second question: sure. If Acadius wins, it sounds like his plot for making sure ideas for tech updates are good is to check with HDMs, if they're the ones making the calls - I dunno, maybe my majority vote or somesuch - I could work like that. I would say it's less ideal, being that deniability isn't nearly as strong of a drama shield as not being responsible for something, but if 'broad power' is as broad as I think it is, I think it would do a fair - not perfect, but fair - job of addressing the second part of my rationale for a split. That said, I do sincerely believe that splitting the office would be the ideal solution, but I'm not foolish enough to refuse to go with the best route possible when the perfect one fails.
Firstly, I need to clarify a part of my platform, 'cuz it's a little indirect:
I propose that there still be only one TA vote, but that the NWN1 TA has no say when the question is about NWN2, and that the NWN2 TA has no say when the question is about NWN1. If the vote is about something cross-platform or non-platform, then the vote from the TA would only go in if both agreed on which way to vote. That said, I don't suspect that giving each TA a normal admin vote would make a problem with ties, being that the Lead Admin is our tie breaker, and we get admin abstaining from voting all the time (leaving the remainder an even number). I just think it would be silly to expect admin we set up specifically to handle separate platforms to have an informed opinion about the others, hence my suggestion for how to handle admin voting.Division of power would be proposed to be by platform, and when issues don’t concern platforms or when issues apply to both, they would come to a consensus or the TA seat would abstain from voting (like a Roman consul.)
To the first question: yes, I could if none of my plotting works out. The full length of my platform has a 'charter amendment pending' phase in it that I believe could be maintained for an entire TAly tenure. However, if we do end up with a "Zelknolf as TA, Acadius as NWN2 staff head" (or, really, whoever I get, if Acadius isn't too keen on the idea. I do think that each of us is assuming the other is prepared to silly quantities of work and responsibility, being that we're both running for the post.) arrangement, I still plan on using my admin vote on NWN2 issues based on his opinion of the subject, and would beseech you other four admin to allow some unconventional forum access so he might be as informed as possible on those opinions.
To the second question: sure. If Acadius wins, it sounds like his plot for making sure ideas for tech updates are good is to check with HDMs, if they're the ones making the calls - I dunno, maybe my majority vote or somesuch - I could work like that. I would say it's less ideal, being that deniability isn't nearly as strong of a drama shield as not being responsible for something, but if 'broad power' is as broad as I think it is, I think it would do a fair - not perfect, but fair - job of addressing the second part of my rationale for a split. That said, I do sincerely believe that splitting the office would be the ideal solution, but I'm not foolish enough to refuse to go with the best route possible when the perfect one fails.
By asking people, silly!
Honestly, I think a large part of our lack of contributions comes from three things, each of which is very counterable.
1. People don't contribute because they don't know how.
Probably the most common response, and probably fairly valid. I recall learning to do tech, and I was given two sentences of instruction from Ronan. "Haks and erfs are the same thing; they're unencrypted and uncompressed collections of files." and "Make sure you get the ncs and the nss files for scripts, because the engine gets unhappy if you only give it one." Everything else was me experimenting, flailing, and innovating in the field of profanity. Frankly, if not for my quirky sense of things, I'd probably have gotten frustrated and stopped trying around June of last year, (and thus wouldn't have given anything to ALFA, save for what work I did on NC). However, I continue to describe tech work as a "whole pile of tiny projects" -- I do believe it would be entirely possible to get people to start small, and indeed in my efforts to put out 1.69, I conscripted work from two completely inexperienced ALFAns, gave tasks and specific instructions, and got results. I didn't get earth-shattering results; neither of them dove in and fixed game engine bugs, but both got a look at some of the grisly innards of our game system, and hopefully came out with a bit of understanding that'll linger.
2. People don't contribute because they don't know that they, specifically, are wanted.
We rarely ask specific people for help. We put out open calls, and they're generally unanswered, as everyone believes that someone else will do it (and thus no one does). To a certain degree, a willingness to point to someone and say "You there, you're smart. Can you help me with this?" goes a long way.
3. People don't contribute because they don't feel valued.
There is rarely applause or encouragement for work here, and it rarely seems proportional to the work completed. In fact, I've found that the pattern with my tech work is that the harder I work, the less I'm appreciated; that's messed up, and I don't think I need to quote B.F. Skinner for everyone to understand why that discourages contribution. Honestly, the response to this one works best when responded to on larger scales. I for one am trying to go out of my way to thank people when I bump into something in ALFA and think "Oh hey, that's nice." My graditude over Adacius not leaving an uncommented labyrinth of a main function, and instead leaving commented modular functions with appropriate names, in the horse system even merited a public praising. I'll say that it doesn't take much encouragement for the average tech type, being that a large part of the motivation to work is the feeling of accomplishment when a system functions well, but we don't last without feeling appreciated at all.
Honestly, I think a large part of our lack of contributions comes from three things, each of which is very counterable.
1. People don't contribute because they don't know how.
Probably the most common response, and probably fairly valid. I recall learning to do tech, and I was given two sentences of instruction from Ronan. "Haks and erfs are the same thing; they're unencrypted and uncompressed collections of files." and "Make sure you get the ncs and the nss files for scripts, because the engine gets unhappy if you only give it one." Everything else was me experimenting, flailing, and innovating in the field of profanity. Frankly, if not for my quirky sense of things, I'd probably have gotten frustrated and stopped trying around June of last year, (and thus wouldn't have given anything to ALFA, save for what work I did on NC). However, I continue to describe tech work as a "whole pile of tiny projects" -- I do believe it would be entirely possible to get people to start small, and indeed in my efforts to put out 1.69, I conscripted work from two completely inexperienced ALFAns, gave tasks and specific instructions, and got results. I didn't get earth-shattering results; neither of them dove in and fixed game engine bugs, but both got a look at some of the grisly innards of our game system, and hopefully came out with a bit of understanding that'll linger.
2. People don't contribute because they don't know that they, specifically, are wanted.
We rarely ask specific people for help. We put out open calls, and they're generally unanswered, as everyone believes that someone else will do it (and thus no one does). To a certain degree, a willingness to point to someone and say "You there, you're smart. Can you help me with this?" goes a long way.
3. People don't contribute because they don't feel valued.
There is rarely applause or encouragement for work here, and it rarely seems proportional to the work completed. In fact, I've found that the pattern with my tech work is that the harder I work, the less I'm appreciated; that's messed up, and I don't think I need to quote B.F. Skinner for everyone to understand why that discourages contribution. Honestly, the response to this one works best when responded to on larger scales. I for one am trying to go out of my way to thank people when I bump into something in ALFA and think "Oh hey, that's nice." My graditude over Adacius not leaving an uncommented labyrinth of a main function, and instead leaving commented modular functions with appropriate names, in the horse system even merited a public praising. I'll say that it doesn't take much encouragement for the average tech type, being that a large part of the motivation to work is the feeling of accomplishment when a system functions well, but we don't last without feeling appreciated at all.