It is a week without dev blogs. However, the CSM has been reviewing some that will hopefully make their way to you very soon.
We have also sat down with CCP on Thursday and discussed null sec and the current impacts the Aegis changes have brought and the game that players are currently playing. The floor is open to share your stories, thoughts, and opinions. As always, I suggest using explanations and descriptions instead of, "It sucks" or the term "cancer". Those are not productive complaints that I can use to argue for what you want.
Jump Clone changes are staying. This came up when the bug was noticed. The cause of the bug was found quickly and we had a lot of back and forth about the feature and if it should stay or not. I reached out for feedback here as well as receiving it from the game and such. I've made a lot of clones for people with my Rorqual but I don't think that that's the best reason to keep standings as they were. I think that it highlights the fact that there needs to be a better reward system created for high standings. At the same time, it also reestablishes the fact that standings need a serious sit down and rework as they become a weird, hollow shell of features. My concern is that this will be left dangling. I don't want that.
Over on Eve Now they have been posting some of the structure concept design. Our relationship with the structure team is very good. We're down there hashing out details. We don't always agree but we at least are having conversation. I'd like to bring back structure bonuses to faction warfare system ownership and spend a lot of time poking in that area.
We also have a very important soundboard/townhall we are planning for the end of next week. Look to the forums for the announcement, hopefully Monday.
And I've been spending a lot of time reading feedback, documents, and having discussions with various groups and topics inside of faction warfare as we gear up for the summit.
Not to address the recent round of CSM Drama
Friday, while I was at work, all hell seemed to break loose. I came home to discover that "The CSM" wished for Gorga to resign. Not having been spoken to about the subject, I spent a large amount of the evening finding out what happened even as people asked me what was going on. At the same time Corbexx released a meeting attendance list that he has been keeping. I will try to address both topics.
Meetings. I made one of the two scheduled this week. Each week that we have meetings I try to tell you if we did or did not have meetings this week and if I was able to attend them. That is my accountability to you as to what I am doing and what I am able to attend.
Meetings are mostly held during CCP's working hours. That is GMT. I am EST which places me at four to five hours (damn daylight savings) behind CCP. On work days, I work from 6am to 6pm. I have a two week cycle where I work opposing days. This means I am only off every other Friday. That is why I make half the weekly meetings with Leeloo. Unfortunately, I did not make the type of job decisions that.allow me to attend meetings during my work day. If a meeting falls on a day I work I cannot attend. I gave CCP Leeloo my work calendar through the end of 2016 for this reason but meetings fall when they will. We have had a number of meetings with twenty four hour notice. I will also point out that this is the same schedule I had last term. However, more meetings were on my days off and our bimonthly meeting was always on a day off being every two weeks.
The case of the public call for Gorga to resign is an interesting situation. I was at work and started getting people asking me what was going on and why did I want Gorga to resign. The topic of looking into his inactivity had cropped up. Is he okay? Is he busy? Has anyone heard from him? However, on Friday as I understand it there was the Friday meeting. I was not at because I was at work. Then there was a tweet. Then all hell broke loose. I have no problem with members of the CSM asking another member to resign and stating a reason for that. If people wish they can start to lobby for me to resign. That is personal choice. My natural tendency is to be very angry at being included in another decision instead of writing angry tweets or posts I decided to push back my knee jerk reaction. I could have added to the drama storm brewing and I decided not to and instead look at the situation.
Inactive members of the council seem to plague session after session. I'd like everyone to be active and I'd like those who find they don't have the time or that the CSM has not provided them the interest to resign. The amount of time that can go into this position can be unexpected. I think its a worthy project and I take the responsibility that I volunteered for seriously. I hope if I found myself in a home or employment position that did not allow me to interact with the position as I believed I'd be able to interact with it, that I'd step down. That being said, I will not cover for an inactive member. I will express what activity I have seen and note that a member can be active outside of my view. But for the most part, even if we do not directly interact with each other we see things like conversations on slack, confluence interactions, and other signs that the member is around.
The problem is there is no way to officially deal with inactive members. It is something we started trying to have formally written up last year and something we will have to get done. That leaves an inactive member not violating the technical side of things but violating the spirit and reason of being here. The current white paper does call on a member to communicate with their constitutes. Two months of silence does not seem like communication.
It disappoints me that this failing happens session after session. People stand up and ask players to vote for them. They ask players to let them represent them. And then they walk away from it without even saying, "I'm going to go." I believe we should have something in place that is a bit more clear and coherent and the lack of that is what is causing these situations that appear to be sudden storms but that have been brewing slowly.
One concern brought to me on Friday night was worry that the CSM was not functional or productive when a situation like this is going on. The activity of the individual members are so important because of our time spent with developers. But, if a member calls out another member that does not mean they cannot work on useful improvements and responses to the game. If someone asks me about a member's activity, I will freely share their activity as I have seen. Internally, I will question if a member is active and I'd like to see that addressed. Six weeks is a release and six weeks of silence puts a member behind and valuable feedback is potentially lost.
Some members of the CSM have approached CCP Leeloo and addressed themselves in public or private as they may have. Now this ball is in play. As always, I'm curious about the voters reaction. Do they want members quickly stripped and removed or do they want people sitting in their positions forever? I figure there is a lot of middle ground there.
As to why should there be a process? CCP can just remove a member but the backlash that would cause between conspiracy theorists and the potential trust it might break would be mostly alleviated with a clear process. There are issues to address like a basic understanding of activity. Is a month inactive to long? When is it to late to add a new member? Is it ever? I'm not a big fan of ambiguity.
In the end, this rolls back to the white paper rewrite that started last year and has not yet produced a new white paper. That is an unfortunate situation and one that I'd like to have resolved by the end of this term. There is more to being on the CSM then being elected and that needs to be made clear. This is a volunteered for responsibility. No one made me run. I try to hold myself accountable to you and I hope that I have managed to do that.