New year = new beginning?
Comments about this discussion:
Started
Happy New Year to all!
It seems to me that the functioning of the committee and the tool is not optimal. I don't know what is going on with the IUF rulebook revision part.
With the current tool, I think most users don't get a notification when there is a new post (I didn't get one when Jan Vocke put a post after mine).
I suggest some changes to restart the dynamics.
I have several proposals that come to mind:
- migrate the discussions to a private part of the unicyclist.com forum,
- work on a shared document on a cloud like google drive (.gdoc),
- involve new people in the committee
- ...
What do you think? (if anyone ever reads this message)
Cheers,
Comment
Thank you for your observations and suggestions.
I agree that the committee for the WR Guidelines update isn't functioning well. As the chairman, I myself am at least partly to blame, I need to put more time and effort into this project again, and my plan is to do that indeed.
I was notified about this post only today (January 13, 2023), but at the top it reads that this discussion was started 10 days ago.
That's (further) evidence that indeed there is a problem with the notifications. I hope this can (and will) be fixed.
As to your specific suggestions:
"migrate the discussions to a private part of the unicyclist.com forum"
The only thing this might solve is the notification issue. But in the past, the notification system worked fine in my experience, and I guess/hope it can be fixed. The platform we're currently using is specifically geared towards these discussions, and has a lot of functionalities for it, for discussing, modifying, voting etc. I would not want to go elsewhere.
"work on a shared document"
A clear disadvantage of this platform is that we cannot attach documents to posts. What does remain possible though is to put up a document somewhere and share the link here.
But what shared document would you want to work on, anyway? Our job is to come up with suggested changes to the WR Guidelines, not a complete new Guidelines document. It is up to the IUF Board to accept the changes or not. After that, the Guidelines can/will be updated; that is kind of an administrative process and in principle needs no discussions.
Having said that, as chairman I keep for myself (locally on my computer) a "shadow document" with the current Guidelines where the proposals that have been agreed are implemented. I'm willing to share that, but I don't guarantee it's fully up to date. The reason I keep this (as chairman) is to keep track of changes and how they would interact in the revised Guidelines.
"involve new people in the committee"
In principle the committee has twelve members now. That is really enough, in my opinion. Admittedly, most members are quite silent at the moment. Once the committee gets going again and especially if proposals are up for voting, it will become clear if some members are not (getting) active anymore. They would impede progress, as we need a majority of voting members to agree on a proposal in order to get it through. My plan is to deny such members their "voting member" status, of course after a warning etc. If this would concern more than a handful of individuals, there will be room for possible new members.
Finally, I also don't know what's going on with the IUF Rulebook revision. A few months ago I heard that Maksym was looking for someone to lead that process, but it seems that nothing has started yet.
Comment
Thanks for your feedback Klaas.
I was waiting for a feedback to develop my arguments behind my proposals.
Concerning the proposal to work on a shared document. If I make this proposal, it is because it seems to me that the current decision process has too much inertia. The shared document I am suggesting would be a GDOC of the current document (2011 WR guidelines), where we could suggest changes with the "track changes" feature. I think this is a way of working that can be complementary to "forum" type discussions, the interest is to better visualize the changes by working directly on the document. This could also have the effect of reducing the workload of the committee chairman. Moreover, this could surely allow to make minor changes to the document (for example changes on the form...), for which we would not have created a new topic in the forum. Finally, we could return this document to the IUF Board with suggestions with the "track changes" feature. Our suggestions could be accompanied by remarks.
The negative point about a shared tool like Google Docs is that not everyone trusts Google, some people want to boycott Google. My position is that they offer simple and convenient tools and that the document we are working on is a document that is intended to be published.
Regarding the proposal to migrate to unicyclist.com.
I think that there are several interests to mutualize the tools.
Obviously I think about notifications, the possibility to attach documents, screenshots. It also allows to have private conversations.
As for the current functions of this forum, I think we should talk about it with Canapin who manages the unicyclist.com forum. I had a brief discussion with him about this. I believe that nothing scares him, it seems feasible.
The other advantage I see is that the committee could have discussions other than the revision of the guidelines (like creating pages about the history of world records, communicating new records on the forum...). A more transversal approach to unicycle world records would make this committee come alive.
Regarding the involvement of new people.
I agree that 12 people is more than enough. But I fear that those who were motivated 4 years ago are no longer motivated today.
I think that my 2 previous proposals could help to regain motivation.
Maybe I'm overreacting and it's just that I got on the committee at the wrong time. I hope I will have input from other committee members on these suggestions.
Comment
Still a happy new year from my side.
This committee has been working on the WRG for quite a while now and undoubtedly nothing has really happened in the last time - the activity was quite different in the beginning and of course I would wish that we could finish the project as intensively as we started. However, I think this is not due to the tool we are using, but has other reasons. The fact that the notifications no longer work as they should is of course something that needs to be looked into - but in the past the email notifications have always worked perfectly, so hopefully that shouldn't be a major issue.
"migrate the discussions to a private part of the unicyclist.com forum"
Honestly, I don't like the idea. Yes, there are some disadvantages here, like attaching files to a message - but basically I think this tool is pretty good for the rulebook updates (or WRG updates) and I don't see any advantage in rebuilding elsewhere the needed functions. So for me the way would be rather: improve this tool, so that existing disadvantages are gone and the many advantages can be used further optimally.
"work on a shared document"
The procedure for making adjustments to the rules is precisely that each adjustment is discussed and each adjustment is subsequently accepted or rejected by a vote. A discussion and a vote cannot be held in a shared document - hence the way to open a discussion for each adjustment and, if necessary, to submit a proposal at the end, which is then voted on. A shared document would at most make sense as an addition, where accepted changes are automaticly enterd, in order to be able to keep better track of the consistency of the overall document and, if necessary, to be able to recognize necessary adjustments earlier due to other changes. An overall document with all already accepted or proposed changes would be quite useful as an additional function but not for workin on - perhaps it could even be integrated into this platform. But a GDOC is certainly unsuitable for this, since the rulebook would of course first have to be converted into a doc, and the new WRG will probably also no longer be made available as a doc (and I couldn't use GDOC on my privat laptop because its to old :D).
"involve new people in the committee"
I agree with Klaas on that.