Bright Works RACI Chart & Roadmap

Workzone

Dashboard

O5 Thread

Current Task:

Collate and Prepare Proposal Plans

Stage 3 - Proposal Plans

Stage 3 - Problems and Solutions Workpage

Questions & Responses Resource

Other Child Pages:

Proposals Workpage

Bright Works Review Workpage - SCPs

Bright Works Review Workpage - Tales/Other

Out of Scope Notes

---

What is this?

This page is a living document, detailing the individuals who are involved in the proposal creation, drafting, review and authorization process. This page also lists interested parties, and those that should be consulted, as well as detailing what specifically are the times when they should be involved in the process.

This is mean to be a reference, such that when proposals are suggest, or questions are raised, we know who to ping/involve in said conversations.

Overview of Effort

To date, when we have tried to resolve the Bright works issue, we have continually run into issues with this project when progress falls onto a single individual. But, due to the scale and complexity of things, it's tough to make progress without a clear vision of what needs to be done. We also tend to bottleneck to a single individual, and with issues that are so wide and complex, that hurts far more than it helps.

To better support the collaborative volunteer effort, and to avoid responsibility all being put onto a single person, we plan on handling this larger discussion/effort through treating this as a larger collaborative project, with listed major objectives, self-proposed work goals for volunteer staff who want to assist, and a weekly/bi-weekly cadence where we check on progress, readjust and pivot as needed.

This process is meant to be flexible, but is also meant to accommodate the fact that we want both transparency on our progress, as well as to better support volunteers, so that it does not fall onto them to be the single person who will guarantee that this issue is resolved.

Roadmap

The following section discussed our general roadmap, where we are right now, and the steps needed to resolve this situation.

Where Are We?

Currently, following the initial discussion thread, multiple conversations began to happen, regarding organizing a collaborative effort, and drafting proposed solutions. Due to staff procedure causing delays, as a result of separate discussions, the Bright works proposal was paused until the issue was resolved.

Presently, we have not given an update on the status of this proposal, publicly.

Where are We Going?

This communal effort is meant to create proposed solutions to the Bright works problem, outline the potential negatives and benefits, and then propose said options to the community. Following that, it would be subject to standard staff votes, or community votes, depending on the proposal. Once the votes have been cast, and there is a majority consensus, we will be able to address the extant Bright works, and put this issue to rest.

High Level Roadmap

We are currently in Stage: Assess All Bright Works for Content (STAGE 2)

Given the nature of this, as a volunteer project, attempting to give a specific timeline is counter-productive; either a volunteer will be forced to crunch, to meet an arbitrary deadline, or the deadlines will be missed. Instead, to track progress within this effort, the process has been broken down into general 'stages' of the proposal — as progress is made, this page will be updated to show the current status of the proposal, and provide a rough indication of how far along in the process we are.

Those stages are as follows:

1. Assess Current Proposal Drafts
   1. As a collaborative group, we should identify existing proposals;
   2. We need to collate said proposals into a single place;
   3. As a collaborative group, we review the existing proposal(s) contents.
2. Assess All Bright Works for Content
   1. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for content, and subject matter;
   2. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for backlinks, and or significant contextual usage;
3. Ideate Solutions Collaboratively
   1. As a collaborative group, identify the key issues that need to be resolved (Partially Done)
   2. As a collaborative group, we need to determine potential solutions that would address the community's concerns, needs and staff's internal thoughts;
4. Refine Given Solutions
   1. As a collaborative group, we need to choose a set of proposed solutions to fully draft out;
   2. Each solution should be outlined at this stage, and have a high level summary written;
5. Write/Draft Proposed Solutions
   1. The largest phase; this is where individuals will be working together on a given proposal, to draft it;
   2. Internal review of said proposals, by admins, contributors, and any relevant teams;
6. Draft Proposal/Discussion Post
   1. As a collaborative group, we create a single proposal/post, outlining the chosen options, rationale etc;
   2. Once finished, the proposal should have approvals from admins and involved staff members, to ensure there is shared understanding internally;
   3. Thread is posted, and discussions occur; repeat as needed.
7. Voting
   1. Once discussions have been resolved, the proposal will be put to a vote (either community, or staff);
   2. Following the vote, if it passes, progress continues to implementation; if it fails, return to either discussion, or create alternative proposed solutions.
8. Implementation
   1. Whatever proposal is chosen, follow through and implement the changes; once this is done, the Bright Works issue will be considered resolved for the moment, and this effort will be finished.

Roadmap Breakdown

This section breaks down the above roadmaps into smaller elements, so that work can be done bit by bit without feeling overwhelmed:

1. Assess Current Proposal Drafts
   1. As a collaborative group, we should identify existing proposals;
      1. Contact any individual who was working on a suggestion or potential solution, to inquire about the status;
      2. Collect links for each proposal, suggestion, or opinion determined to be relevant;
   2. We need to collate said proposals into a single place;
      1. Get all links into a single place
      2. For a proposal, we need to:
         1. Copy all information and writing out of the document, and into a central 'working document';
         2. Organize the information from each proposal into different categories;
            1. For example: Summary of Proposal, Case History, Problems/Specific Issues, Work Needed, Work Done, etc;
            2. In each category, try to group like information together;
   3. As a collaborative group, we review the existing proposal(s) contents.
      1. Once all of the proposal information has been collated and sorted, we should go through and sort their contents into further categories:
         1. Will use; for things that we want to bring forward into this continued effort;
         2. Might use; for things that could be useful down the road, but we are unsure about;
         3. Won't use; for things that we deem irrelevant to the ongoing conversation, is out of date, or is otherwise unhelpful.
2. Assess All Bright Works for Content
   1. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for content, and subject matter;
      1. For each given work, authored by Bright, we should do the following:
         1. Read the piece, and note any problematic content specifically, with quotations;
         2. At a high level, note the subject matter included; (ie: if it is problematic, what about it? sexualization of minors? predatory tones? etc.)
         3. Tag the work as one of three categories:
            1. Problematic/To Be Removed; for works that are overtly problematic, and should be removed from the wiki;
            2. Ambiguous/Potential Removal; for works that are potentially considered problematic, and/or could be removed from the wiki, through this effort;
            3. Acceptable; for works that have no inherent problematic content. This does not disqualify the pages from being removed, if we decide to remove all pages; rather, this helps us know at a glance which works are more important to remove than others.
   2. As a collaborative group, all works are checked for backlinks, and or significant contextual usage;
      1. There is already a list of backlinks in the policy-discussion thread; however, these are just urls;
      2. For each given work, any backlinks to the page should be checked for the following:
         1. How reliant is the work on the connected Bright work?
         2. Is the backlink minor, or is the inclusion major?
         3. Is the linked work problematic as well? Does it have thematic ties to the problematic work in question?
         4. If the backlink was removed, would it meaningfully affect the linked page? (Yes/No)
      3. Once all pages with backlinks are identified, we can quickly sort them into categories:
         1. Unrelated; for linked pages that have little connection to the work in question, if any;
         2. Related (Minor); for pages that have some contextual relation, but are either not problematic, or the inclusion in question is ambiguous;
         3. Load-Bearing; for pages that directly rely on the content of a linked work by Bright;
3. Ideate Solutions Collaboratively
   1. As a collaborative group, identify the key issues that need to be resolved (Partially Done)
      1. Based on all of the ongoing discussions, proposals, and extant conversations, we should group things into general 'issue' categories;
      2. Each issue should have a high-level summary, including:
         1. What the specific issue is that we are trying to address;
         2. The scope/impact of the given issue, and what it currently affects;
         3. The reason that this issue should be addressed;
         4. What would need to be done to address it, at a high level;
         5. What resolving this issue would accomplish
            1. Address this both on a community level, and in terms of accountability to victims etc.
   2. As a collaborative group, we need to determine potential solutions that would address the community's concerns, needs and staff's internal thoughts;
      1. For a given issue, as a team, we should create a number of potential solutions to address that specific issue;
      2. Once we have potential solutions for each issue, we compare and see what solutions have overlap, and can be combined together under a given 'proposal plan'
4. Refine Solutions Collaboratively
   1. We create, ideally, between 3-5 different proposals; each proposal does not need to address every concern or issue, but they should all be distinct from one another;
      1. This starts with high level summaries, with notes about how each could work, and what they would resolve;
   2. As smaller groups, we break out and work in parallel, with some degree of 'point person' for a given proposal - they are not fully responsible for this, they are just helping as a de facto reference individual for a given proposal;
      1. For each proposal, we write a high level summary version, covering:
         1. What the proposal is focused on resolving;
         2. How it wants to resolve the issues;
         3. The potential pros/cons of this specific proposal;
         4. What it doesn't address, if anything, and;
         5. A summary of the work that would be needed to be done for the proposal to be 'resolved'.
   3. Once we have a set of proposal summaries, we come back together as a team, and give feedback on the other proposals;
      1. For a given issue, we should contact other staff members and teams, for consultation on the issue/solutions;
   4. As a team, we also solicit feedback from staff, to determine what are the best proposals;
   5. From the set of summaries, we chose 2-3 solutions to move forward into the next stage, for full proposal drafts.
5. Write/Draft Proposed Solutions
   1. The largest phase; this is where individuals will be working together on a given proposal, to draft it;
      1. For a given proposal, we need to collaboratively outline a detailed plan for how we are going to resolve the Bright works issue. This should include:
         1. What is specifically being done, at an overview level;
         2. A summary of the pros and cons of this specific plan;
            1. Why we believe this is a good option/the rationale behind this solution;
            2. What isn't being done with this proposal, and why we chose not to;
         3. A detailed, step by step plan, walking through how staff will resolve the proposal, if it passes. This should include details about how the works are being handled, a rough time-estimate, and what we define as 'done';
            1. Note: For example, do we considered the task 'done' when we have deleted the pages, or is it not 'done' until the backlinks have had their URL links removed? This will be per-proposal.
         4. Address any future steps, that would need to be taken next, as part of a separate project, if any.
   2. As a staff body, we should perform an internal review of said proposals, by admins, contributors, and any relevant teams;
      1. Any proposals addressing or utilizing a specific staff function must consult with that team's captain, who must sign off on the proposition;
      2. Proposals receive collaborative edits, to polish and massage given word choices.
      3. Once the key collaborators are satisfied, the team should get input from the Admin team, as a final stage of checks and balances. Once approved, we can move onto the next stage;
6. Draft Proposal/Discussion Post
   1. As a collaborative group, we create a single proposal/post, outlining the chosen options, rationale etc;
      1. This should be mostly completed by the end of the last step. However, the single post should have an overview, and have the full text of a given proposal either within a collapsible, or linked off.
      2. This should strive for readability, comprehension, and framing around these options, having gone through extensive review, represent the best paths forward.
   2. Once finished, the proposal should have approvals from admins and involved staff members, to ensure there is shared understanding internally;
      1. Again, while this was done in the previous step, this is just final looks, to make sure that there is a collaborative understanding of what is being proposed before it is posted.
   3. Thread is posted to both o5 and o4 — discussions will run for a week.
   4. At the end of the week, key collaborators should review the responses, and create a rough tally of where support lies, both from a staff perspective, and from a community perspective
      1. Based on that information, a determination should be made regarding if a vote will be held on a Site-wide basis, a Staff-wide basis, or otherwise.
         1. The preference is a staff-vote, or lesser; however, if the solutions are polarizing, and staff is not uniform either, then a community vote is more comprehensive.

How Are We Doing This?

To avoid work falling onto a single person, and to prevent work being assigned to a staffer who is unavailable at a given time, we are going to try a self-selected style of work.

The first step we will take is to gather contributors from within staff; by saying that you want to contribute, you do not commit to a given amount of work, but are instead signaling that you would like to assist where you can.

Once we have our set of collaborators, this collaborative effort will be tracked and run in a weekly-biweekly cadence. At the start of each period of time, as a contributor, you will say what you are trying to get done in this period of time. You are not required to deliver it in full, however, it is better to underestimate, rather than overcommit. Through this cadence, there will be support in terms of ensuring that the information is updated on current progress, planned work, and general status of the proposal; we will be able to tangibly point to where we are in the roadmap, and the specific items we want to accomplish within the work period.

At the end of a given work period/cadence, we will discuss if we hit the goals that we set; if we did, awesome! If not, it's not a problem, we just readjust our expectations re: how much we can get done, and keep slowly working through this massive endeavor.

RACI Chart

This section outlines the current overall general list of contributors, invested parties, and other relevant teams or individuals.

RACI Chart Summary:

Responsible	Accountable	Consulted	Informed
thedeadlymoose	Admins	TEAMS: Admins AHT Curations Contests USERS: thedeadlymoose DrEverettMann Uncle Nicolini DrBleep Prismal	TEAMS: Admins AHT Staff

RACI Chart Details:

TEAMS/GROUPS

Team/Group	RACI	Reason/Rationale	Specific Area of Focus	Preferred Method of Contact
Admins	Accountable, Consulted, Informed	Due to the potentially volatile nature of this situation, any final decisions should be run through administrative approval — this is to ensure that all potentially involved parties have been consulted, communication can be distributed accordingly to all relevant individuals, and to avoid potential conflicts.	All
AHT	Consulted, Informed	Due to the fact that Bright's ban was as the result of an AHT ban, and due to familiarity with the situations surrounding the victims, AHT should be consulted for any proposals, and informed ahead of any next steps.	All
Curations	Consulted	Due to potential proposals involving rewrites or staff-driven custodianship, Curations should be consulted during this process, to ensure that any potential issues can be flagged. Based on the specific topic, either Riemann or Queerious should be contacted as Captain/Vice Captain, or Uncle Nicolini as Rewrite Subteam captain, so that any relevant information can be raised.	Rewrite/Custodianship Proposals
Contests	Consulted	Due to potential proposals involving slot distribution via contest, Contests should be consulted during this process for those topics. Either Naepic or WhiteGuard should be contacted, as subteam captains of Contests.	Contest-Related Proposals
Staff	Informed	As this is a staff-wide conversation, any decisions that have been made should be communicated to all of staff, to avoid confusion.	Major Decisions etc.	Announcements/Pings

INDIVIDUALS

User	RACI	Reason/Rationale	Specific Area of Focus	Preferred Method of Contact
thedeadlymoose	Responsible, Consulted	Given that Moose has been consulting on multiple proposals, and has both historical context and direct involvement with prior Bright conversations, they are both responsible for spearheading any discussions related to their proposed solution, as well as consulted for any matter that they have experience with. Additionally, Moose is working on their own comments for the O5 discussion.	TBD
Admin team members	Consulted	Mentioned as having been involved in a proposal's pre-discussion thread work. Consulted admins: DrEverettMann, Uncle Nicolini, DrBleep, Prismal1	TBD
aismallard	Consulted	Gave feedback to moose's discussion comments.	TBD
stormbreath	Consulted	Gave feedback to moose's discussion comments.	TBD

INSTRUCTIONS:

Hi there everybody! If you have been working on an idea, would like to be involved in the proposal drafting process, or have a specific area of expertise with this topic that you believe would be of benefit for being consulted regarding, please feel free to add yourselves to the "Individuals" RACI Chart, as well as the summary. When you do, make sure you list if you will be Responsible, Consulted or Informed.² This document does not proscribe how we must do things, but rather, is meant to help us avoid issues of action being taken without consensus, if somebody has an alternative solution or proposal.

If you are involved/would like to be, feel free to edit this page, and add yourself to the relevant sections, noting what you have done/are doing, and when you should be contacted or involved in the process! As we are currently trying this format of documentation/inter-team coordination out, if you have any thoughts, concerns or feedback regarding RACI charts, or how we could tweak this to better fit out processes, please don't hesitate to reach out either publicly, or via PMs to me, Queerious, as I am spearheading this.

Footnotes

1. Queerious here — I'm including these next few individuals in the initial draft of this RACI chart, based on known information. If anybody does not want to be listed, you may remove yourself.

2. Responsible individuals are the ones who do the work, Consulted individuals are asked to give input on a given topic, and informed users are kept in the loop. Accountable individuals are responsible that the work is being done, and is limited to Admins at this time, given the complexities at hand.