The need for a Balance Team

[KameRamen]

It has been some time since I posted on the forum and the discussion seems to have become quite complicated. I recognize that quite a few people agree on the need for the balance team, and in fact I think that is being confirmed, so that is good trend. But the controversy seems to be moving to another side. I think there are two major ones, perhaps the following are correct?

* Whether or not to partially revert the balance status to 1.16 or earlier.
* A couple specific people the project manager wants input from regarding the future of the game.

First, I personally am very supportive of reverting back to 1.16 status, but only if it is partial. Resetting all changes is not possible now and seems too extreme. How about tabulating the survey again as reference for the parts to be reverted? It would be great if there was some better way to collect community input, but I cannot think of one right now. But of course, the Google Form should not be used as the standard for reasons of privacy.

To state the obvious: people will usually give different responses to what they think about other people they need to interact with on a regular basis when asked in private vs in public. So, once again, no, I'm not giving out names, and I'm not going to ask those people for their opinions in public. And if you don't like that, then too bad.

And I believe you should disclose who you ask and the names of that couple specific people to anyone who wants to know about it. This is an open-source project and discussion should always be more open to people. The discussion is very opaque in determining the future of the game now that no information is being shared from you. I feel that it is inviting unnecessary controversy instead.

[name]

The person ultimately making the decision will be me, because I'm the project lead and that's part of my job. And the fact that me saying that I'm asking a few people for advice has become a point of contention is an excellent example for why I will absolutely never go into any further detail about it.

It's not really asking people for advice that's the point of contention, it's the private discussions.

https://producingoss.com/en/setting-tone.html#avoid-private-discussions
https://www.theopensourceway.org/the_open_source_way-guidebook-2.0.html#_culture_of_transparency

I agree with gnombat about this. Open discussions create understanding and trust. Transparency is a core value of open source development as much for pragmatic reasons as ethical ones.

To state the obvious: people will usually give different responses to what they think about other people they need to interact with on a regular basis when asked in private vs in public. So, once again, no, I'm not giving out names, and I'm not going to ask those people for their opinions in public. And if you don't like that, then too bad.

While I understand your desire for honest feedback, it is also important for people to know why a particular pick was made and have a chance to correct any inaccurate things said about someone.

[Tezereth]

Open discussions create understanding and trust. Transparency is a core value of open source development as much for pragmatic reasons as ethical ones.

Completely agree with this. Wesnoth being specifically an open source project, it is an ethical responsibility to be transparent about important changes and decision that are being taken. The recent decisions have done nothing but create unrest and confusion, why would peoples trust the current process?

It is quite insane to me, that I'm witnessing game developpers, that are very much NOT making open source game, value and listen more to their players, and are more transparent in many aspects.

[lhybrideur]

If you guys do not trust Pentarctagon decisions, just make him not the next PM. In the meantime, he is the PM and acts as he thinks is the best for Wesnoth.

[Skyend]

Man, you (Underground Dojo KEYBOARD Cagefighter) really suck. Instead of him picking dudes on his own, he is informing himself about the candidates from various sourceses to makea solid decision.

But instead of beeing happy that he is that invested, all you do is to complain.
Also, getting a name list will only make you rant those ppl, trying to convince them about your opinion.

Instead everyone who isn't going to be picked can give their feedback about changes and ideas to the candidates.

-make an add-on about it
-let ppl test
-they give feedback
-some candidates will be convinced
-things will be changed and add-on updated
-ppl can test again
repeat this loope till we reach 1.20 or everything is great with minor individuell exception, we can't make everyone happy

With this beeing said can't you please invest you energy on support this, but ranting on pent (his job is hard enough).

[Mirion147]

If you guys do not trust Pentarctagon decisions, just make him not the next PM. In the meantime, he is the PM and acts as he thinks is the best for Wesnoth.

It's completely reasonable to complain when you disagree with something. But in this case it's been taken to far. It has been announced that the discussions will not be made public. It has (to my knowledge) not been announced that no reasons will be given about why some names were selected over others. Allowing whoever is asked for advice to speak freely without the undoubtedly mob of attacks that they would get is a blessing that pent has decided to give to those he's involved. They do not need to be harassed just because a few people dislike their opinions but won't step up enough to take their place and remove the option of those opinions. This is an open source game and anyone is able to get onto the council, but that doesn't mean that every personal detail of each member needs to be displayed for public perusal.

Saying "Hey, it would be nice to be able to have everything disclosed to the public in this process" is okay
But the response of "no, I would like to hear honest opinions from trusted sources which can only be given in private without having the potential to cause issues (whether it would or wouldn't doesn't matter)." Is also okay. We should accept that and as lhybrideur said, if it's still considered a problem then just become the next PM and don't do that.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

The person ultimately making the decision will be me, because I'm the project lead and that's part of my job. And the fact that me saying that I'm asking a few people for advice has become a point of contention is an excellent example for why I will absolutely never go into any further detail about it.

It's not really asking people for advice that's the point of contention, it's the private discussions.

https://producingoss.com/en/setting-tone.html#avoid-private-discussions
https://www.theopensourceway.org/the_open_source_way-guidebook-2.0.html#_culture_of_transparency

I agree with gnombat about this. Open discussions create understanding and trust. Transparency is a core value of open source development as much for pragmatic reasons as ethical ones.

To state the obvious: people will usually give different responses to what they think about other people they need to interact with on a regular basis when asked in private vs in public. So, once again, no, I'm not giving out names, and I'm not going to ask those people for their opinions in public. And if you don't like that, then too bad.

While I understand your desire for honest feedback, it is also important for people to know why a particular pick was made and have a chance to correct any inaccurate things said about someone.

Open discussions create understanding and trust. Transparency is a core value of open source development as much for pragmatic reasons as ethical ones.

Completely agree with this. Wesnoth being specifically an open source project, it is an ethical responsibility to be transparent about important changes and decision that are being taken. The recent decisions have done nothing but create unrest and confusion, why would peoples trust the current process?

Yeah, I agree.

It is quite insane to me, that I'm witnessing game developpers, that are very much NOT making open source game, value and listen more to their players, and are more transparent in many aspects.

It's actually not that insane, most non open source games are commercial, and therefore directly depend on the support of players, because sales directly depend on it, and there is an additional incentive to make a good game in the form of material benefits. Although open source game developers don't have that financial incentive, the game is a result of collaboration between many people - multiple generations of devs, contributors, modders and players who put their effort into public discussions on how to make the game better and later in implementing the changes which lead to the improvment of the game. Private discussions are more more likely to lead to controversial decisions that only drive away people who would otherwise contribute to the project, not attract new ones.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

If you guys do not trust Pentarctagon decisions, just make him not the next PM. In the meantime, he is the PM and acts as he thinks is the best for Wesnoth.

The selection of a new PM and project council members is a process that requires it's own discussion, even wider and lenghty than the discussion about the creation of the balance team, it isn't the same as replacing a dev on an existing position, which is actually something that's better not to initiate unless necessary, and by "necessary" I mean the situation in which players and modders can't reach the compromise with a dev they can't convince but whose decisions are controversial or create issues for players and modders and a dev doesn't let others to make decisions that are less controversial or solve more issues than create. Now when Penta outright refuses to disclose what he thinks is the best for Wesnoth and why he thinks so, it's impossible to tell if what he thinks is the best for Wesnoth is similar to what players who play Wesnoth and modders who create UMC for the players who play Wesnoth think is best for Wesnoth, and by "Wesnoth" I mean not only the game itself, but also players who play game and modders who create UMC for the players who play the game, who form the community. This impossibility makes it very hard to reach a compromise with Penta.

[DuncanDill]

Penta has shaped the game to be what it is, I trust him enough to go through something like this...

[Pentarctagon]

I'll note that nothing is stopping anyone else from discussing what they think about the people volunteering to be on the balancing team here is this thread. If you have opinions, by all means share them yourselves.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

Penta has shaped the game to be what it is, I trust him enough to go through something like this...

He isn't the only one who shaped the game, nor is he the first. In fact, I had issues with the way game develompent follows since 1.12, that was IIRC before Penta became PM. Until recently, I didn't have issues with him either, but he is responsible for controversy and issues of 1.18 as much as the people who implemented the changes leading to controversy and issues, because he either missed what they were doing, which is understandable, for he has more than SP/MP development to manage, or he knew but let them do that anyways, which is worse, because he couldn't be unaware that these changes were controversial and going to cause issues, but thought that his opinion is more important than that of players and modders who were going to be affected by these changes, and with him revealing how he's going to make a decision as important as creating the balance team makes my trust in him is broken, for his insistance on the way of decision making he described he's going to follow, the way he tries to justify this way of decision making and refusal to disclose his reasons for following both of these ways makes me think that he follows these ways more often than not, if not most of the times, which makes me think that he knew what changes for 1.18 were controversial and going to cause issues but thought that his opinion is more important than that of players and modders who were going to be affected by these changes and noone will try to disapprove his ways and dispute his opinion.

[Roge_Tebnelok]

I'll note that nothing is stopping anyone else from discussing what they think about the people volunteering to be on the balancing team here is this thread. If you have opinions, by all means share them yourselves.

I've already shared my opinion on the existence of balance team, the number of people on it and volunteers. In fact, the latter was expressed in response to Duncan's post on the number of people on the team and volunteers who he thinks should get on it, I agreed with him, but added seventh volunteer to make the odd number which will help to avoid ties, namely SkyEnd, but now I think Bolyarich would do better, he's also an MP expert, but didn't yet support the ways of how development process is conducted which lack the transparency on purpose.

[Pentarctagon]

The whole point of having maintainers for specific areas is that they know the area better than I do, so I intentionally don't try to get overly involved in what they do unless it becomes necessary. The same would be true for the eventual balance team as well.

[Skyend]

I've already shared my opinion on the existence of balance team, the number of people on it and volunteers. In fact, the latter was expressed in response to Duncan's post on the number of people on the team and volunteers who he thinks should get on it, I agreed with him, but added seventh volunteer to make the odd number which will help to avoid ties, namely SkyEnd, but now I think Bolyarich would do better, he's also an MP expert, but didn't yet support the ways of how development process is conducted which lack the transparency on purpose.

Thanks dude, now that you shared your opinion please stop spamming off topic in here, that the candidates and other user don't be discourage to join or share their opinion. We don't need you to sabotage the project, please don't reply (only in dm if you have to rant on me)

[KameRamen]

The person ultimately making the decision will be me, because I'm the project lead and that's part of my job. And the fact that me saying that I'm asking a few people for advice has become a point of contention is an excellent example for why I will absolutely never go into any further detail about it.

It's not really asking people for advice that's the point of contention, it's the private discussions.

https://producingoss.com/en/setting-tone.html#avoid-private-discussions
https://www.theopensourceway.org/the_open_source_way-guidebook-2.0.html#_culture_of_transparency

I agree with gnombat about this. Open discussions create understanding and trust. Transparency is a core value of open source development as much for pragmatic reasons as ethical ones.

To state the obvious: people will usually give different responses to what they think about other people they need to interact with on a regular basis when asked in private vs in public. So, once again, no, I'm not giving out names, and I'm not going to ask those people for their opinions in public. And if you don't like that, then too bad.

While I understand your desire for honest feedback, it is also important for people to know why a particular pick was made and have a chance to correct any inaccurate things said about someone.

I completely agree with this point of view. In addition, as I perceive it, the matter is not about how much of the private should be disclosed. In other words, the problem lies in the fact that this kind of conversation between developers is so opaque to the community.

The whole point of having maintainers for specific areas is that they know the area better than I do, so I intentionally don't try to get overly involved in what they do unless it becomes necessary. The same would be true for the eventual balance team as well.

If it has led to the current critical situation for the future of the game, I think it may need to be changed. The disastrous controversy is the result of changes made to 1.18 mainly by one particular developer.

I've already shared my opinion on the existence of balance team, the number of people on it and volunteers. In fact, the latter was expressed in response to Duncan's post on the number of people on the team and volunteers who he thinks should get on it, I agreed with him, but added seventh volunteer to make the odd number which will help to avoid ties, namely SkyEnd, but now I think Bolyarich would do better, he's also an MP expert, but didn't yet support the ways of how development process is conducted which lack the transparency on purpose.

Thanks dude, now that you shared your opinion please stop spamming off topic in here, that the candidates and other user don't be discourage to join or share their opinion. We don't need you to sabotage the project, please don't reply (only in dm if you have to rant on me)

Personally I think he is not spamming, although. It may be superfluous, but limiting or driving away replay and discussion here based on own perceptions is not good for the long term.