This will need to be included in the proposal itself because otherwise, you’re not telling the DAO where to apply it. As the facilitator, you’re also not telling me when I should and should not enforce it. However, I’d appreciate it if you leave it up to the team when to do it. Our idea for now is to do it on major releases only so that it doesn’t affect regular live operations cycle.
Kindly update your proposal as your proposal is what the DAO will be voting on.
Got it. We’ll be updating you with an impact report on what is feasible and what is not.
Kindly update your proposal. However, I’d like to ask for more time regarding this. We might need to check the legality regarding this first. For example, who will the NDA be between since it’s the DAO that’s enforcing it. If the legal discussion becomes too complex, we should come up with an alternative.
Kindly edit the post itself as that is what the DAO and the council will be voting on. Also, I’d like to suggest to get the proposal in its best shape before the review! ^^ If you wait for the council review and it fails the first time, the next time it can be reviewed is on December 15th. You will be asked to repeat the discussion with the DAO and refine the proposal again. Since as you said, you don’t want to delay it, it’s best to make edits early! I will also send a reminder to the council to check this thread too so you can get additional input!
I support this but i have a question, You want the councils to sign an NDA but also you want them to share the information thru the public?
You might want to indicate which one will require to sign an NDA and not? because in some cases. A council may want to tell the public about the release to get more opinion [because councils are voted by the community].
While counciles are trusted voted by people are great to be on that position to test it. [this is actually already discussed in the council before this proposal] if testers wont have the full details. they wont also be able to provide accurate feedback.
like for example that recent SC. if say LG only provided the game sense which is to pick a door and such. testers could say yes its fun and it’s going to be exciting. but if LG then decides to put a 250 RBW entry fee or the Prizes are not worth it. can we consider that as an accurate release? is the data given could be changed and this is my concern. it can just basically put council or tester in the middle of the blame game too .
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I would support this proposal for voting. I like the idea . BUT. do you think its better that Testers/councils will have the chance to stream it in CU discord to grab feedback? .
I mean if something is wrong people will still “riot” but at least we know that 1 week early prior to official release if we need to release it or not or make some changes. everyone still gets the update.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Here are some ideas.
2 weeks before they release the feature they can open it to Testers/Councils. Within that 1 week time. Councils/Testers can stream whatever those changes are to inform public. if there are opinions or concerns about this change community has this whole week to decide.
1 Week before the release Laguna Games can let us know about the feedback they’ve taken into account and what stays and what’s not. testers/councils may or may not be able to access the test servers until the release date.
also depending on the feedback and such release may get delayed to allow LG to do the necessary changes.
a lot can happen in 2 weeks yes. I think its much more important for us to release quality updates and delay things rather than we release and majority will not be happy.
Hello, Keizer. Streaming is not something that can be allowed in this case, unfortunately as the content will need to stay within the council until the actual release. ^^
2 weeks before they release the feature they can open it to Testers/Councils. Within that 1 week time. Councils/Testers can stream whatever those changes are to inform public. if there are opinions or concerns about this change community has this whole week to decide.
1 Week before the release Laguna Games can let us know about the feedback they’ve taken into account and what stays and what’s not. testers/councils may or may not be able to access the test servers until the release date.
also depending on the feedback and such release may get delayed to allow LG to do the necessary changes.
a lot can happen in 2 weeks yes. I think its much more important for us to release quality updates and delay things rather than we release and majority will not be happy.
I would also like to mention that actually, there’s nothing big that can realistically be done in 2 weeks. Once a product has been built, there is barely anything that can be changed from the production side. At most, only tuning changes can be applied. We’d like to check what is realistic in this regard so we will let you know what works! We will be sure to post the impact report before the 30th.
Actually that is exactly what happend with the quest board, SC staking and the fall event. Stuff was adjusted in a one week or two week period to make it work. We are not talking about changing a feature in it’s ground structure but to adjust where needed so we can enjoy a new feature, instead of seeing it fail only to be fixed one or two weeks after.
thanks. I also updated the original post with all the adjustments. Looking forward to the impact report. After that, nothing should speak against pushing it to a vote.
Signing an NDA is an issue. Do you have an alternative solution for that? We currently have a Beta Test group at the moment who could probably be put forward to overlook things prior to their release or a group like that with a max number of people who will remain the same group no rotation required. Privacy is a huge thing and I respect. I wouldn’t want to put that type of requirement on anyone. If you do however have another idea, like to hear it.
Hey, Mama_Psycho! I would like to clarify that the beta test group is limited to the Uniguilds only. The beta test groups will not be testing game features.
as for the streaming. okay. will have to wait for it then when it happens.
as BlackField said i dont think community would always want to have like a major change. I think unless LG really was way out of its direction. I always think that 1-2 weeks is a acceptable. I also know that some features standard shipping time is 6 weeks. and LG can always inform the public if the implementations will require longer time like the “Forgiving mode” in SC. [which is expected in january]
@blackfield with the impact report coming before the 30th you will have a short time to analyze and make these revisions. if council or for whatever reason that it was rejected/deferred. please do send the proposal again for a review on dec 15th. I believe this is important for the community.
Hey, thanks for your response
Why is signing an NDA in your opinion an issue? Because of privacy? If so, I made it optional to sign one for the government council/review process. Only people who sign it, will be joining the process.
Hello, everyone. We’ve written our impact report. Please find it on Notion. Happy to discuss further so we could find what’s workable for all parties involved. We can also write this in the form of a draft proposal for better visualization if needed.
I had discussed with council and am yet to see the rest respond, but so far it’s a no to signing a NDA. If all council voted against an NDA what would be the other option in doing this? Although voted that it should be a “Governance Council” job do you think it’d be best to put this forward to a selected group outside of council that are willing to meet that requirement instead? I think it’s great that you’ve put this together nevertheless. Healthy conversations definitely a must!
I think its because of privacy. not really sure for others but for me i initially don’t like signing NDA’s due to its nature that if you get misjudgement you can get blame for shocks that you’ll be liable in the future.
besides if the person is really prooven doing something malicious we have an option to oust a council.
i will make a further review on this. i honestly like the impact report sent by @lgManicUnicorn
Hello, @everyone!
Thank you very much for all the discussions so far. I would like to provide an update on how we will move forward with the proposal.
The two criteria a proposal needs to meet to move to the governance council review phase are:
-proposal needs to be active for at least 5 days before review
-proposal has a mostly positive reception
A temperature check is to be conducted when both are not met.
The “Include Community in Releases” proposal will be subject to a Temperature Check as the recently raised discussion points are yet to be addressed.
A temperature check is considered to be successful if we receive 10% sRBW participation with the sRBW Snapshot taken November 30, 17:30 UTC. The temperature check will be open for five (5) days and will close on December 5, 17:30 UTC.
And I personally do not like what @lgManicUnicorn posted , in terms of punishment, is general information.
The document should contain specific information, and not be left to others.
There is evidence of a violation - carries the established punishment.
And the notebook leaves it all up to Laguna.
@KeizerMc I don’t really see why a NDA should be a problem. I mean some might want to avoid taxes and are scared of getting doxed but… is there any other reason really? Please elaborate. If you do not break the contract (leak information), there is no liability.
Hello, blackfield. I’ve published our impact report. We’ve made suggestions on how to approach this. I apologize if we failed to state it directly on the impact report but, LG also is not going to issue an NDA for this. We expect that in general, the community will find out about these changes through the AMA and other working sessions anyway. It’s only the specific implementation that the group will be reviewing.
Edit: We also made edits to the impact report to suggest including all the founders badge holders. It might be worth considering opening this to a wider group of people. What does everyone else think?
it’s not that i don’t agree with NDA, i will sign if needed. but personally i don’t like signing documents that can potentially be used against me regardless of.
You can sign an NDA now and a community member can just blackmail you or target attack you for it. with enough influence this can be dangerous.
One thing can be lead to another
Let’s say you don’t leak information but someone else did and was pinned on you ?. how would you respond? . you can drive a car on the road but still if there are drunk drivers you can still risk yourself of an accident. and in my preference i don’t like that in my reputation.
Buy hey they needs this for x and y . but me wanting to share my experience on it because x and y.
I don’t want to hit my self with the rock i picked up thinking because it would help my tribe on something.
hope you understand where im coming from. cheers!
::EDIT::
If i sign an NDA this should mean that its a professional work and that it requires my professional expertise where i would be professionally compensated.
While we do things on a goodness of our hearts, we have to accept the reality that not everything is work for free.
but at least we know that 1 week early prior to official release if we need to release it or not or make some changes. everyone still gets the update.
