AVID:Requests for Comment/Make new positions for both the wiki and other AVID projects and add interim members while implement breaks within certain positions

Make new positions for both the wiki and other AVID projects and add interim members while implement breaks within certain positions

i've been thinking that although in the past year we've made numerous progressions that helped the wiki's growth and perception among many, this year also had some incidents, especially within the discord server, that either severely impacted some members' mental health (especially within the bureaucrats, admins, mods, and staff) to the point that some had to step down briefly or demoralized by the state of the wiki/server in spite of said progressions. so, i would like to propose two ideas.

1. make new (and probably separate) positions for graphic design for the wiki, the avid youtube channel, avid social media, and future avid projects so it wouldn't have to confine into a small amount of members within the four upper positions and spreading themselves too thin since i feel like expanding themselves beyond the four upper positions didn't help matters, especially within their mental health.

2. add interim members and put in breaks within certain positions, either for mental health reasons, when some are too busy outside of avid, or just time breaks in general (like hourly, daily, weekly, or monthly). that way it would ease the stress of oversighting not just the wiki, but also the discord server, the youtube channel, the graphics design, or other avid projects.

but those are just my ideas, thanks for reading. Mr. Gann (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Support

1. Support For Part 1 of the proposal. Having staff managing all aspects of AVID has significantly impacted our ability to function as a team. Eternity Media Group (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Support · Talk · Edits 07:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain for part 2 of this proposal. I'm not sure that break periods can be properly enforced yet. I suspect that if implemented, it would become something we get used to over time, however, hence not an all out oppose. updating to an general abstain having read raidarr's comments. Eternity Media Group (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments

1. Just food for thought and not a full vote. I'm not sure you quite see how the staffing structure works as it is not necessarily bureaucrats, admins, mods, and staff: this is a simplification you see on the discord server. Rather it is a set of three (at this time) overlapping branches: wiki staff, forum staff and discord staff, forum naturally being the newest and the members of each group often overlapping. There is also already what you'd call a team or department, a handful of users who've taken responsibility for the youtube channel. All management unifies at the bureaucrat level who oversee everything and in the background are tech faces like myself who also assist in multiple branches.
   
   This arrangement can and probably should be improved, this is something to consider, but I'm not sure it's ready to add multiple full-on staff positions as suggested here at this time. Instead the current arrangement should be optimized and done better, then grow organically. It is really a lack of professionalism, consistent standards and having process to deal with situations that has resulted in the incidents you describe. Load balancing has been a problem as well and the fact that the top management is distributed across three senior staff members helps with that. What is left is making management more organized.
   
   What would be an interesting start is to have a 'master list' of staff inclusive of all three platforms then additionally lists for people who've volunteered in specific capacities. This helps organize a bit more, allows some of the original suggestion to take place but I don't think it would add unnecessary formality. People like Nancer could be recognized for their graphics contributions there and the current organizers of the youtube channel could be listed. It would also clear up what I believe is a misconception that took place in the original proposal.
   
   Breaks are, as stated above, not really enforcable nor practical at the current staff team's size. At best we can encourage people to at least chip in a little every so often and if they chip in a lot, to pace themselves and remember they're not alone. Smaller steps first and time will tell if they're needed or need to go further.
   
   Interim staff is briefly mentioned but granted no detail. This is an interesting part, I'd like to figure some ways to help onboard volunteers. What I'd suggest is an arrangement where people volunteer to collaborate with staff groups, ie, your suggested graphics roles or with the channel, and that gives a powerful foot in the door for people to help demonstrate their potential. Or it can be a way to just help out without raising the stakes. Up to the individual.
   
   In so many words I think a lot of this is on the right track but the wider proposal is starting a little too much too soon. Bits and pieces should be considered and integrated and we work from there. First priority for me is making the staff more coherent so it can afford to do some of this extra. There's a lot of room to discuss bits and pieces in a more casual venue such as the forum or suggestions channel on the discord for refinement.
   
   This is probably grounds to oppose and I may think on it more and leave a proper vote, but these are my thoughts.--Raidarr (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC)