Proposition #477 -- More LL Proposal Review

Just beginning a discussion forum for a vote I've put up and hope will get some more response than it already has. Here is the text of the prop as it is now. Let me know how you feel about it!

If you vote yes on this poll, PLEASE vote on the actual proposition in the voting section!!!

Here's the URL:
Proposition #477

Since voting started, Linden Labs has only Acknowledged/Can't Do 10 proposals, all of
which (according to those proposals) were created on the 13th or 14th, which is shortly 
after voting started.

As I write this, the highest proposal number is #476... the most recent LL response was to 
proposal #124, a prop clearly meant to be something of a joke (the pony prop), and the 
previous one was 113, which clearly wasn't a joke (the proposal URL prop). Proposal #6, 
created on 4-13-2005, is still in limbo, without so much a recorded comment from Linden 
Labs.

There are currently 9 proposals with over 500 votes for them, some controversial, some 
fairly straight forward.

To the point:
1.) I believe that proposals should have a certain lifetime where LL MUST either Approve, 
Disapprove, or Extend the proposal. I propose this be at MOST 30 days. If a proposal is 
worth posting, it should be worth people getting out and pounding pavement to get other 
voters interested in their proposal. Each proposal should only be allowed one (1)
extension of 30 more days, and LL should comment on why the extension is justified.


2.) If LL does not Approve, Disapprove, or Extend, proposals should automatically die if 
they have less than a certain minimum of votes. I propose this be no FEWER than 200 
votes.

3.) Votes that reach at least 500 votes should immediately receive LL comment, even if 
not an outright Approve or Deny. Proposals with this many votes are tying up a lot of 
people's voting power and they deserve to know if it's worth keeping their voting power 
tied up.


To sum it up: The voting system is great, users are making use of it to try to be heard, 
but so far, there's very little evidence we're being listened to. These three little things
would help keep the system moving and alive instead of just becoming a graveyard of 
mostly pet peeves interspersed with a few good ideas.

The irony being that the passage of this proposal is seriously threatened by the very behavior it seeks to correct.

Your point is well-taken, however.

Unfortunately/fortunately, I was unable to pound the pavement as I would have liked until now. However, I'm doing so now and I want to make this happen.

Can you give us a link to the proposal, please?

While I have had the feeling that the voting system is where ideas go to die, I think that LL is in bug fixing mode right now. Phillip often says that, and other Lindens have also repeated it. They need to fix SL so that it is stable and scalable, and only THEN can they resume messing it up with botched new features.

I like your idea, but maybe permit more than one extension.

Enabran: I've edited the original post to include a link. Thank you.

How many would you like to see as a maximum? The idea here is to ensure that LL can't just sit on things without even so much as a comment. There's no obligation that just because they comment, that a proposition will be approved or disapproved or implemented in any timely manner. The idea here is just to start getting some feedback at all, and help some of us free up our voting power for other things we consider important.

<edit: Correction, I meant to say that just because they comment, approve, or disapprove, there's no obligation incured that they will implement it in a timely manner. We have no idea when Havok 2 will be implemented (I'm guessing 1.7.0) but at least we know it WILL be done, and we were able to reallocate those votes elsewhere.>

I think what you're asking for is fair. If something hits 500 votes, Linden Lab should say SOMETHING. I don't think it's unreasonable that we get a little two-way communication regarding the vote system, otherwise people will lose interest and the system will lose credibility.

Lose credibility? No offense meant, truly none, but at this point, I certainly don't consider the voting system to be credible. This proposal isn't aimed at retaining credibility, it's aimed, in my eyes at least, at restoring it.

At the moment, to put it bluntly -- I consider the voting system a dismal failure. It worked great for the first few weeks, and since then... .... ... nothing.

The voting feature is well, a pretty disgusting way of avoiding things that should be dealt with in the first place. Feature voting is just, in my eyes, another excuse to avoid fixing bugs. While its a pure form of 'entertainment' for the users, it really has no purpose, its just a mere smokescreen.

The voting system, if it is a failure, isn't one because of anything the user population did. 500 proposals can testify to that.

What *is* telling though is that of those 500 proposals, only 1 (!!one!!) proposal has actually been approved, and it was a nonsensical one at that. I honestly dont think the Lindens even look at it. Clearly not much when it started, and especially not now.


- Newfie

The voting system is a bust. It never worked as well as the Feature Suggestion forum. With the opening of the Waterhead office, perhaps they'll take this sort of thing inworld where it belongs.

You know, use the Internet tool they developed to collect data that'll help them guage their customer service and improve the overall experience for everyone. How crazy is that?!

To be fair:

9 proposals have been approved.
1 has been denied (and while I don't like that fact, I admit I agree with it)

Some of these approvals are going to take a LOOOOOONG time to implement -- especially transitioning to Havok 2 and integrating HTML.

Also, remember that there is a difference between expressing that you feel unheard and slamming SL/LL -- between critiquing and criticising. I want people to do the first. I will not tolerate the second. From what I understand, I have some rights to moderate this thread because I started it... I'm not sure, but if I do, I will not tolerate criticism. It does no good and just fosters ill will.

Eh... The voting system is a broken concept. I don't mean that to be insulting toward Linden Lab, but it is. The idea of letting users/customers vote on features, so that the overwhelming majority is satisfied is a good idea for a traditional company. Suggestion boxes, "How's My Driving" phone numbers on trucks, and customer support are great if you're dealing with a company that provides a static service or product. However, with Second Life, Linden Lab isn't providing a static service or product, they're offering a development platform. Not only that, they're offering a development platform that encourages users to work under the terms of the Creative Commons, and ideal/license designed so that other people can build upon previous works.

The voting system is an outmoded mechanism, because Linden Lab shouldn't be waiting for users to vote on what they want added, they should be encouraging us to add it ourselves. Looking at the top 10 proposals, I see no fewer than three proposals that could be handled by users if Linden Lab spent more time offering information to developers and less time fighting with a voting system.

Unless I'm wrong. My opinions are based on the, possibly faulty, belief that Second Life is a world designed to grow based on user development and ingenuity, and not just Linden Lab's own. If Linden Lab is offering Second Life as a static service or product, and not as a user extensible world, then everything I said above in wrong.

To be equally fair, I will admit I mis-spoke. There indeed has been 9 approvals. What I intended to say what that there was only 1 that was completed. Even given those adjustments, 10 Lindens reponses out of 500 proposals is still by far a dismal response rate.





Personally, I refuse to tolerate mustard on my ice cream.

On a serious note, criticism in of itself is not a bad thing. There is such a thing as positive criticism, and many people - including myself - have no qualms about criticisizing LL if they think LL screwed up. Personally, I try to do it in a generally positive way, but sometimes a negative subject will just have to come out negatively. If I feel LL needs to be criticized, then I'll be quite happy to do just that.

If you dont or wont tolerate it, then by all means, express your displeasure at it. Just expect that when posting in a public place, one will get all manners of replies and responses.


- Newfie