Here’s my thoughts. We’re having good discussions but we don’t have any official way to declare ideas part of the MVP.
Proposed Process:
A thread is posted called “MVP Nominations” where any user can nominate a specific MVP proposal to go to a vote.
After some time, a voting thread will be opened where users can vote on the status of proposals, and a proposal needs 75% to be official MVP.
a. In the event that two contradictory proposals are voted in, the more highly voted proposal will be accepted. In a contradictory tie, another vote will happen.
How’s everyone feel about this? It helps us move forward the process so the dev team knows exactly what they need to build.
I disagree with this. I think having an MVP Nominations thread wouldn’t be effective. If there is only one huge thread, many users might ignore it due to being hard to follow.
The current state of MVP proposals is “one proposal per thread” and I think it is a good model, as it allows discussion in context. Why should we not vote within the thread?
Here’s what I think would be better:
Proposals, that have been inactive for a while (at least five days) and where consensus has been reached, will receive a response from an administrator, which will summarize the consensus. The response will also ask users who disagree with the fact that consensus has been found to reply to the post. Then a topic timer is set that will close the post 36 hours after the last reply. After the thread closes, the consensus will be written into the Wiki.
If a proposal is really contentious, the administration team should wait a reasonable time (but still, ideally, up to two weeks at most, or at least 5 days since the last reply), until a poll is created and the topic closed. The poll should run for 3 - 4 days, possibly a bit longer for important polls that require more consideration or a large number of voters. The result of the voting shall be written into the Wiki, after the poll closed.
I like @luap42’s suggestion too. Would just suggest these modifications to the second point: (in bold)
If a proposal is really contentious, the administration team should wait a reasonable time (but still, ideally, up to two weeks at most, or at least 5 days since the last reply), until a poll is created and the topic closed. The poll should run for 3 - 4 days, possibly a bit longer for important polls that requires more consideration or a larger number of voters. The result of the voting shall be written into the Wiki, after the poll is closed.
Why:
Voting doesn’t take awfully long
Many MVP definitions are not as final so as to be set in stone once written to the Wiki
Hence, these modifications might be capable of speeding up the process a little bit, with virtually zero negative impact from my POV.
I think these changes are fine, for now. Later (after MVP) we should use a slower process, however, given that we want to start finalizing the MVP specs soon, I agree with shortening everything a bit.
Before I saw this post, I edited a few things into the wiki, with links back to the forum discussions. In all cases I also left a comment on the forum thread, asking for updates if the final form changed. These were cases that looked pretty settled, and I didn’t want to miss them later, but I’ll stop doing that now.
Does closing a thread bump it? We need to make sure each set of requirements gets edited into the wiki when the thread closes, so I propose that the closer does it – or, if you really can’t for some reason, ping someone else to handle it. Does that work?