6
\$\begingroup\$

As I am writing this, it has been 45 days since the 2021 Community Check-in. Many of the answers identify observed site trends, with scores indicating community agreement with those observations.

So what do we do now? I think many of the observations made warrant further exploration, but I'm not sure what that looks like.

To be clear, this is not the place to discuss those observations, rather a place to brainstorm what those discussions should look like.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ “To be clear, this is not the place to discuss those observations, rather a place to brainstorm what those discussions should look like.” Are we sure that's the right way to designate this topic? It seems like it's safe to just say this is a [support] question seeking to understand what the next steps look like. (If it's "well, we need to brainstorm that", we can do that & answers will talk about how.) Basically, telling us we're going to brainstorm here the next steps for the entire feedback Q&A seems like it might be biting off a bit much, and it's not how the answers have been engaging. \$\endgroup\$ – doppelgreener May 21 at 23:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ @doppelgreener we are not sure. \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov May 22 at 0:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ Since I dislike just sweeping out comments on meta, I'll leave what I think is the useful takeaway from them. Questions on meta are better when show research etc. just as with mainsite question, and requesting or suggesting those additions just be done in the same friendly, respectful and constructive fashion. I understand the desire to brevity and assumptions, but many things that apply to mainsite also apply meta. \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Mod May 23 at 13:39
8
\$\begingroup\$

If you want to address a specific point from the check-in, you would open a Meta discussion on that specific point. With an eye towards what would be different about your new Meta if one exists on the same topic already (and it almost inevitably does).

\$\endgroup\$
6
\$\begingroup\$

I started writing a comment and then found it got too long.

I'll bow and take blame for it going somewhat unsaid and ambiguous, but I (subconsciously) assumed that most of the ongoing process is covered by a norms, but let's put some words on the specific details.

There's no defined process specifically for the community check in. Normal users are able, allowed, and encouraged to raise discussions to try to solve issues, and the community check-in tries to help that mostly by getting things identified, but also tries to identify things which don't translate into full discussions. Either it's highlighting something positive, something that's just informative to keep in the back of our minds, or something intangible. But if anyone has a good idea for how to start a discussion regarding one of the things raised they should do so. The wording in the check-in post is trying to get those started rather than (too much) effort being misplaced in the respective comment threads.

And at least in my experience, getting things voiced so it can rattle in someone else's brain for them to start the discussion can be of great use. Maybe they have an idea, the frame or perspective to start the discussion or suggestion that will bear fruit.

And I'd like to cover another point which spring to mind here regarding the use of "we" and moderation team. I'll fully acknowledge it being ambiguous, at least for this case it is intended to be inclusive, meaning we the community. Moderators wear many hats, and the relevant here is Community Leader, but that hat is not exclusive to us. Taking part of meta, and especially starting (constructively and in my preference neutrally) discussions is wearing that hat.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I 100% agree, although I think given the difficulty of a lot of these discussions, having them mod-led or at least mod-involved, I think would help guide the discussions in a more positive manner. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 20 at 15:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch I can totally see that, certain parts are really helped by having a diamond attached, but I'm weary of the notion that starting discussion should be left to mods (not saying that's what you're saying, but wanted it said never the less). Is there anything specific you had in mind with mod-involved? \$\endgroup\$ – Someone_Evil Mod May 20 at 16:19
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ A mod-start isn't necessary a requirement, although getting the mods to frame the listed issues to start the conversation may be helpful and limit agenda-driven prompts. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 20 at 16:31
4
\$\begingroup\$

To quote the check in itself:

This post isn't the place to workshop solutions - if a particular problem gets a lot of votes, we should open a new meta question to do justice to that issue. Solutions hidden in a comment thread on one of these answers can not be clearly vetted and voted on, so they will tend to remain undone.

A problem or trend that has some sort of actionable resolution should have a Meta opened to brainstorm possible solutions and have those proposals voted upon.

If the thing worth noting is just some trend, then perhaps a Meta long the lines of "What can we do about X trend?" Or "Is X trend a bad thing that we need to fix?" would work well.

\$\endgroup\$
5
  • \$\begingroup\$ Is this something the moderation team usually leads, or individual stackizens? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 20 at 14:09
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch Trish already did this one rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/11489/… I better hope that we don't continue rpg.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6129/… \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu May 20 at 14:12
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't think regular users can be prevented from opening such Metas. I definitely have my own ideas on how those Metas should be conducted, but I am only one person \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 May 20 at 14:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ Less about preventing users from doing that (I don't want to do that!) But given that the check-in was moderator led, I don't know if the solutions part could/should be as well. \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 20 at 14:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Naut Yeah I'm not sure either, and don't know if I have the energy to turn this into an explanation of my particular stance on the ideal way such Metas should be conducted. \$\endgroup\$ – Medix2 May 20 at 14:19
0
\$\begingroup\$

We proceed as usual.

There is no one way to go about the host of situations that we have identified in an actionable way. If somebody or a group of people take the task upon themselves to create an/ actionable item/s, it is on them. The community check-in is a snapshot, not a todo-list.

Some people have already started to act during the nomination phase, and we do so by utilising the usual site features. If you want to discuss a particular issue, then you can use the appropriate venues.

Any such discussion is a regular discussion. People involved may or may not reference the snapshot.

\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ So you are proposing we do nothing proactively? Just wait and see if any users take up the torch of solving our problems? \$\endgroup\$ – Thomas Markov May 20 at 13:56
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov we do all the proactive things we usually do, we are already doing so. \$\endgroup\$ – Akixkisu May 20 at 13:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .