WUSSE - Project evolvement

[CzechMate]

The simple majority is essentially what I'm advocating. I don't begrudge the project managers deciding in the event of a tiebreaker 50-50, it's when they decide on a minority option in favour of one that more people support, that totally bugs me.
It will probably be very RARE that the 66.67% threshold is ever reached, thereby the project managers will end up having almost complete autonomous decision making power on where the project will go.

and also to markrlondon:

Guys, I understand your reasons. It would be better if there would be consecutive rounds of votes, each eliminating some designs and in the end we have a chance to have a winner, that would win solely by your votes, without need for moderators intervention. I believe you also understand, that this would be so timeconsuming, that we cannot afford such system. Also, this would require so much work from us, people behind this project, that we could start asking money for it...

We could change the rules, so there would be a winner, if he reaches simple majority of 51%. But, there will be polls, where we would have more than two options, that means, that we could never achieve such majority. this was the case with case design poll.

I will think of a new system for voting, that would ensure that this project is based on common accord, not project management decision.

I hope you are not that much upset about this decision regarding Triton Case - there was 49/51 result and with saltyporks vote it would be 50/51. I know this was not exactly fair, the Nav-B has won over Triton by 2 votes, but still, I believe this decision was for the good of this project.

In the end, what special watch could we create with nav-B? There is so many watches on the market created around few Nav-B designs, that in the end, we would have a watch, that looks like tons of other watches, with the only slight difference of having serial number and maybe WUSSE engraved somewhere.

Guys, I know this decission cannot satisfy all of you. But, you can always buy some Nav-B uhr from Steinhart and you will always end up with very nice watch. Here, you have the possibility to get watch that will be totaly UNIQUE! And maybe in the future, Steinhart will release his own Triton FB watch, but WUSSE will be first! (at least I hope so... )

Common, lest get over this and I promise, we will do our best to find voting system, that will leave the decisions up to you.
:thanks

[Andy S.]

......i'm with you on this.

The simple majority is essentially what I'm advocating. I don't begrudge the project managers deciding in the event of a tiebreaker 50-50, it's when they decide on a minority option in favour of one that more people support, that totally bugs me.
It will probably be very RARE that the 66.67% threshold is ever reached, thereby the project managers will end up having almost complete autonomous decision making power on where the project will go.

[vnf68]

Many thanks CzechMate!
I agree with you fully.

[Uwe W.]

The simple majority is essentially what I'm advocating. I don't begrudge the project managers deciding in the event of a tiebreaker 50-50, it's when they decide on a minority option in favour of one that more people support, that totally bugs me.
It will probably be very RARE that the 66.67% threshold is ever reached, thereby the project managers will end up having almost complete autonomous decision making power on where the project will go.

Icestorm, I honestly regret that you are so unsatisfied with this process.

The vote had stood with the Triton case ahead by one, until the very last voter, someone who had already voted for the Triton. That person changed his mind and voted for the Nav.B, which means the vote came down to the opinion of ONE person, who had clearly swayed between the two options. It was as close to a 50/50 deadlock as you can come.

We didn't want to have to make the decision that we did pertaining to the watch case. If you look back through the various threads you'll see that we implored people to vote. Begged actually. Had the case vote been separated by more than one vote this wouldn't be an issue now. We appreciate that a majority will be difficult to obtain, but we also don't have plans to make this type of intervention a regular event. Obviously a 55/45 vote will go to the choice that received 55.

Above all, our goal is to remain fair and respectful of everyone's wishes, but at the end of the day it is impossible to please everybody equally. As an example, your opinion on how this is being run has been contradicted by several other forum members. So who is right? You? Them? Or do we resort to bashing this thing back and forth until the cows come home? This is why we posted rules on how this project would be run at the very beginning. We also stated that if you wish to join this project that you would need to accept those rules. Despite this and your decision to participate, you're now taking great pains to point out that we're being unethical?

At this point I'd like to know what your goal is. You've threatened to (or already have) contacted the Forum owner. You have written numerous posts of complaint. Is it your wish to dismantle this project or stall its progress? Or maybe you would just like us to step down from the management role? Perhaps you would be satisfied if we held yet another vote for the case? And once we've corrected everything to align with your wishes, we will need your input on how we deal with the complaints of the next person in line, and the person after that.

I'm not trying to be facetious, disrespectful or sarcastic. Honestly, I would like this to be a fun process for everyone. We are trying our best to run this project in a manner that denotes its purpose, to create a Special Edition watch worthy of the Steinhart name. The decision for the Triton case was based on that goal. I would like you to enjoy participating in this endeavour, but would also ask that you realize, and hopefully accept, that it's not an easy task to rudder a ship full of people that want to row in different directions.

Best wishes.

[SydneyDan]

With you 110% for exactly the reasons you spelled out!! Good call!!

[krille]

I think I was the one who changed my mind, making the vote very even, possibly complicating this choice. Even so, I would like to express my full support for the project managers and the decision they have made. I think this project needs clear leaders who can make a decision and stand for it.

Uwe, good post! Supported 100%!

[Icestorm]

Icestorm, I honestly regret that you are so unsatisfied with this process.

The vote had stood with the Triton case ahead by one, until the very last voter, someone who had already voted for the Triton. That person changed his mind and voted for the Nav.B, which means the vote came down to the opinion of ONE person, who had clearly swayed between the two options. It was as close to a 50/50 deadlock as you can come.

We didn't want to have to make the decision that we did pertaining to the watch case. If you look back through the various threads you'll see that we implored people to vote. Begged actually. Had the case vote been separated by more than one vote this wouldn't be an issue now. We appreciate that a majority will be difficult to obtain, but we also don't have plans to make this type of intervention a regular event. Obviously a 55/45 vote will go to the choice that received 55.

Above all, our goal is to remain fair and respectful of everyone's wishes, but at the end of the day it is impossible to please everybody equally. As an example, your opinion on how this is being run has been contradicted by several other forum members. So who is right? You? Them? Or do we resort to bashing this thing back and forth until the cows come home? This is why we posted rules on how this project would be run at the very beginning. We also stated that if you wish to join this project that you would need to accept those rules. Despite this and your decision to participate, you're now taking great pains to point out that we're being unethical?

At this point I'd like to know what your goal is. You've threatened to (or already have) contacted the Forum owner. You have written numerous posts of complaint. Is it your wish to dismantle this project or stall its progress? Or maybe you would just like us to step down from the management role? Perhaps you would be satisfied if we held yet another vote for the case? And once we've corrected everything to align with your wishes, we will need your input on how we deal with the complaints of the next person in line, and the person after that.

I'm not trying to be facetious, disrespectful or sarcastic. Honestly, I would like this to be a fun process for everyone. We are trying our best to run this project in a manner that denotes its purpose, to create a Special Edition watch worthy of the Steinhart name. The decision for the Triton case was based on that goal. I would like you to enjoy participating in this endeavour, but would also ask that you realize, and hopefully accept, that it's not an easy task to rudder a ship full of people that want to row in different directions.

Best wishes.

I recognize your imploring other people to vote, and the time you have spent in managing the project. Your efforts are not in question here. It is more your technique and your methods. I am not the only person to have reservations on the process with which this was conducted, and have not been the only person to voice their concerns actively, although my post was perhaps the strongest in terms of criticism.

At no point before the vote was completed, was there transparency that 'a 55-45' vote would have carried the day. Only now subsequent to the fact have you provided such an assurance. All the guidelines that we had previously, was that a 67% majority would be required for the project management to be unable to decide in favour of a certain outcome. There was absolutely no evidence at all that a simple majority would have been sufficient. Indeed, the over-riding decision you guys carried out is proof to the contrary that a majority vote short of your 66% would have carried the day.


As Czechmate had recognized in his very well written post earlier, I am not whinging on the Nav case not winning. I think the Triton is a great, and unique, case. I am not trying to destroy the project. I am trying to make sure that the project is run in a fair and equitable manner, going forwards with so many critical decisions still pending. Towards this end, even he has recognized that to steady the ship, the voting system and/or the decision making powers of the project managers need to be reworked and/or a clearer procedure conveyed to all members.

I agree that it is not easy to guide a ship with different opinions, but a great deal of the difficulty is due to the unnecessary lack of clarity and equity in the process. There is a reason why democracy works.

Out of respect for the project, I will cease commenting on this particular issue and wait to see if the voting / decision making process will be improved upon for future aspects of the project.

Thanks.

[aerome]

So what is indicated here if I'm understanding it correctly, is that a couple of guys came up with this neat idea, crafted the rules and set out on task of gathering opinions about the design. When all the case design voting was completed, the guys that spearheaded the whole thing changed the rules to suit their updated opinions? Am I on target here? Someone please let me know because this little adventure that started out being fun just became aggravating for me. And no, it has nothing to do with my personal dislike of Triton's watch case, it now becomes a matter of principle and ethics. #66 may just be up for grabs as I'm sure a number of others will be also.

[the_old_curmudgeon]

So what is indicated here if I'm understanding it correctly, is that a couple of guys came up with this neat idea, crafted the rules and set out on task of gathering opinions about the design. When all the case design voting was completed, the guys that spearheaded the whole thing changed the rules to suit their updated opinions? Am I on target here? Someone please let me know because this little adventure that started out being fun just became aggravating for me. And no, it has nothing to do with my personal dislike of Triton's watch case, it now becomes a matter of principle and ethics. #66 may just be up for grabs as I'm sure a number of others will be also.

The rules and guidelines had been laid out before the voting had been completed.

[Uwe W.]

When all the case design voting was completed, the guys that spearheaded the whole thing changed the rules to suit their updated opinions? Am I on target here?

Simply put, after two rounds of voting there was one vote separating two watch cases. The Nav. B case had one more vote than the Triton. As was stated in the original and unaltered rules that were posted before the project was even started, "A design element will be considered as being accepted when a majority decision (66%) has been reached. If a majority cannot be reached the Project Managers will attempt to arbitrate the vote, and if required, make a decision so that the project can continue forward."

Given that Mr. Steinhart has graciously offered us the use of a yet unreleased case for our project, it was decided that in the absence of a modest majority, to use the case that would best reflect the Special Edition status of this project.

In anticipation that there would be grievances between individuals trying to design a communally constructed watch, we had asked that people accept the posted rules as a condition of joining the project. But now that we exercised a decision that was clearly within the rules, it would appear that not everyone was actually in acceptance of them.

We appreciate that there are concerns over the decision that was made. And that there are disgruntled members who had hoped for the Nav. B case. To address this controversy and in the hope of not having any further issues arise, the 66% rule will be changed before the next vote.

For my part, I regret that there are unhappy people. The actions we have taken we believed to be in the best interest of this project. It was not an easy decision to make and it has clearly made us unpopular with some of you and a target for negative comments. But how someone could think that this qualifies us as being unethical will forever remain a mystery to me. We would appreciate comments focused on constructive criticism in the goal of improving this process instead of those suggesting us to be immoral and malicious.

I can't speak for the mood of anyone else participating here, but to date, only two people have left this project. One claimed he simply didn't care for the Triton case. Three new people have joined in their place and I suspect there will be many more as the watch begins to take shape.