[Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

[Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

DrBleep 03 Apr 2022 12:48

As was a point of contention in the previous thread, and as a first step in moving our policy rewrite and evaluations forward, this thread is being created to discuss what we, as a staff body, consider the charter to be.

So what even is a charter? What do we want out of this process?

This discussion is open ended, and is looking for suggestions and thoughts. It will last for roughly five days, and I will extend it by admin fiat if I feel we haven't gotten a sufficient consensus.

I and others have loosely put what we think we should be doing here, as well as what the charter should be: here. At the end of the 5 day period I will be taking all feedback from the skeleton threads, and this thread and composing a fresh skeleton based on the consensus of direction we are looking towards.

Mainsite Mirror: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14592560/discussion-charter-definition-and-process

Last edited on 03 Apr 2022 12:55 by DrBleep Show more

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

DrBleep 03 Apr 2022 12:51

I and others have loosely put what we think we should be doing here, as well as what the charter should be: here.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

OptimisticLucio 03 Apr 2022 13:00

So:

A - I think "charter" should, going forward, mean "a page (or set of pages) which we use as a theoretical foundation for what Staff should be and should do, rather than a rigid set of rules." Like, it should define what is the goal of staff in relation to the site, what we should and shouldn't be able to do, lines we should not cross or consider crossing, etc. This kind of document should be hard to modify because it's something that should remain relatively untouched, except if something major happens.

B - Since our previous charter worked both as a Charter and as a policy page, we need to split the two. IMO, the methods you and ocuin suggested are great for this. Additionally, we should write the conceptual charter before the actual policy backbone, since the latter will rely on the former.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

Yossipossi 03 Apr 2022 16:20

Seconding Lucio.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

gee0765 03 Apr 2022 17:10

thirding lucio - charter should be small

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

Meserach 03 Apr 2022 20:40

This seems broadly sensible. A "charter" (not invested in any particular name) outlining general, broad principles, that's short and digestible. And then a tree of policy pages, broken down by topic.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

Jacob Conwell 04 Apr 2022 02:59

Not to get on the rubber-stamping train, but this is ideal. A charter or whatever you want to call the document consisting of the abstracts of what staff is, which are likely not changing any time soon, paired with a highly modular/evolvable policy tree that can be easily navigated by topic is pretty neat.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

Vivarium 04 Apr 2022 09:13

Choo Choo, all aboard the rubber stamp train!

(In all seriousness, this is a solid plan of action. I support it fully)

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

The Pighead 04 Apr 2022 10:07

Not well-versed at all on these things, but I think this is a good definition for it!

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

OCuin 04 Apr 2022 10:23

Nth-ing Lucio

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

Prime Girl 04 Apr 2022 15:13

I mostly agree with this. Insofar as the order in which we do the charter and the policy pages/policy tree, people have suggested doing it at the same time, people have suggested doing the charter page first. Depending on how long this ends up taking, because I do, already, wholeheartedly believe this is going to take longer than the initial policy pause laid out, might want to do the charter first, work on the policy, and then just quickly revisit the charter, to make sure it is still in line with the policy that was just grouped/created. That way if when working on the policy stuff, if anyone's ever like "darn why didn't we think of X for the charter" we can indeed add it later to the charter, without the chaos/stress of working on both the charter and the policy at the same time. Essentially, I suppose I'm proposing the first charter review take place at the very end of the process. Otherwise, full agreement with Lucio's post

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

OptimisticLucio 03 Apr 2022 13:02

[wikidot doublepost]

Last edited on 03 Apr 2022 13:03 by OptimisticLucio Show more

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

GremlinGroup 04 Apr 2022 15:31

I have to echo Lucio's feelings on the matter, but I'd really like to stress that the charter should focus on Staff's relationship and responsibilities to the main site.

Looking at the extant charter, the introduction doesn't even define what site we're staff for, let alone what the purpose of that site is. It takes until the third tab for a passing mention of the term "SCP", How can we possibly act as the staff of the site when the definition of the main site's goals isn't included in our charter? Even if it's a rather open definition, which I'd be in favour of, it'd be nice to actually recognise this sort of foundational information in the charter. To use an example: the current charter states that staff "maintain" the site, but doesn't go further on what this means, because the justification is tucked away in the Deletions Policy. Our definition of maintenance should come before the inclusion of any specific maintenance policy. Particularly when that policy is located in a guide.

I'm so in favour of getting the abstract charter done. It'll be a complicated process, and we may find during that process that the opinion of Staff (or of the main site's community) is that some existing policies go against what the site (and its staff) should stand for. I would hate for us to be in the process of more-accurately defining staff's role in service of the main site, and to feel beholden to archaric policies. I'm aware that policies have already begun being collected, but I see no reason for all of these policies to be included in a policy tree or anything like that if they may go against what we (and the site as a whole) believe is the core of the site and its staff. To reiterate something I keep mentioning: I believe the userbase should have the opportunity to be just as involved in this process as staff are. We aren't here to dictate how the site works, we're here to serve the community as it grows and evolves.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

Meserach 04 Apr 2022 15:42

I had taken it as implicit that literally all existing policy in whatever form would be subject to change, at least potentially, as part of this process, and additionally that we shouldn't be beholden to the precedent of old policy or old decisions.

There's absolutely no way, in my view, this process will move forward if we try to involve the userbase in anything other than perhaps a final ratification stage. It will be hard enough getting staff to agree on wording. What we can encourage is for the userbase to see the draft wording of both charter and policy (because it will be posted here and mirrored to the main site forums), commentate on it and, if desired, petition staff for particular changes.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

LORDXVNV 05 Apr 2022 15:24

I believe that actively soliciting input (i.e. actively asking the community for ideas on what to do, as opposed to feedback, which is approval of staff ideas) from the community would stall the policy tree to an unacceptable degree. I believe to some level that if site members care enough they will make their voices heard.

That said, I think we should take a more proactive approach to making it clear to the userbase that the charter rewrite is happening so that anyone who is aware that this is occurring has the opportunity to chime in, without needing to solicit the hundreds and thousands of people who don't care.

To that end, although front page space is quite limited, I think it may be worth stickying a link to the mainsite mirrors of charter discussions thread somewhere on the front page. It should be made clear to the immediate userbase that this process is currently ongoing and that they have spaces (O4 mirrors) in which to make their voices heard. I do not believe that the current approach of just posting O4 mirrors provides enough evidence to show that the userbase is aware of the charter rewrite process but just doesn't care enough to chime in, as there has been 1 reply to 3 threads in total over the past 10 or so days.

I believe that a process that is meant to clearly define staff's relationship to the userbase justifies taking up space on the front page, but does not justify the time and labor needed to design, hold, and analyze another community survey.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

LORDXVNV 06 Apr 2022 04:01

Two disclaimers: I am only junior staff, and I joined staff very recently in the grand scheme of things.

I may echoing Lucio like everyone else, but I think that the charter should include a section of extremely straightforward, almost vague statements everyone agrees upon that define a general steering direction for the site. Guiding principles as opposed to hard and fast instructions:

Staff will maintain the function and quality of the SCP wiki

Staff will promote the wiki as a space for creative writing

Staff will manage the SCP brand

Staff will not use their staff positions to willfully solicit additional attention to their works

The goal, really, would be to declare a firm common ground as a logical and ethical justification for ideally all wiki policy. This may be overambitious. Nonetheless this is roughly what I imagined when I read Gremlingroup's first paragraph above.

Policies, then, would actually go into detail on what these look like. I hesitate to go into greater detail because they might be unnecessarily narrow in scope — I had originally written out "Staff will maintain the function of quality of the SCP wiki by developing tech policies and deleting subpar work" and "Staff will manage the SCP brand by removing licensing violations across the internet and performing internet outreach" but that feels closed-ended to the point of being constrictive, not constructive. I believe this roughly aligns with Bleep's policy diagram from the previous thread.

Beyond having a dedicated section for this "ethical thesis statement", I think collapsible 1 of Ocuin's post covers everything else that I think should be in the central charter as opposed to the policy tree i.e. extent and limitations of staff power and policy creation and implementation. http://05command.wikidot.com/forum/t-14580540/discussion-charter-overhaul-skeleton-ii:electric-boogaloo#post-5244573

If you'll permit me the indulgence of some unnecessary purple prose, the core ethical and structural charter is the trunk of a tree. Policies, then, are branches, to be grafted or pruned as times change.

Re: [Discussion] - Charter Definition and Process

OptimisticLucio 06 Apr 2022 13:51

should include a section of extremely straightforward, almost vague statements everyone agrees upon that define a general steering direction for the site.

I disagree with them being as vague and generally agreeable as you listed them. For those statements to actually steer us in a specific direction rather than exist in the general space where we were headed regardless, some of those statements will probably have to take some sort of stand, even if it may be unpopular in the future. For example: "If a certain decision may either improve the browsing experience of the end user or make staff's workload easier, the choice favoring the userbase should be taken unless it is excessively unreasonable to do so."

Last edited on 06 Apr 2022 13:53 by OptimisticLucio Show more