Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-25356303-20180917175234/@comment-26213507-20180918135513

As a member who read the moot log a few days after it occurred, I initially felt that the "Circle" idea was one that would save time, and as Atvelonis has said, it did. I joined it because I wanted to get active in the community.

Of course, the meetings weren't the best coordinated. For the most part, it relied on at least three members being in chat at once, which was fine in 2016, but since then, chat was inconsistent, and tended to be barren. I ended up just voting on the nomination pages myself in an attempt to try to spark something, but that was unsuccessful.

That being said, I think that with slack, a coordinated meeting is much easier; all we have to do is ask one another for a time, and then join chat. The method can still work, and a simple agreement to do exactly that would fix this.

Of course, not all circle members have to be part of the staff. The above might not be the easiest for this, so I recognize that flaw with the system as well. In addition, many people can't be on at the same time every time, which makes meetings harder. This caused sessions even in the beginning to be pushed off until later. General disregard on all of our parts didn't help, either.

Seeing both sides, I am not staunchly on either; the circle is both effective and not, and a substantial promise to put that task not on the back-burner, but as a priority, would make the process smoother than a simple vote; however, the system, as it is now, is flawed, and it may be best to do away with it. Consider my vote for the latter, but only barely. I can support either side, to be honest.

Regardless of what happens, I suggest that the page be at least archived, rather than straight-up deleted and forgotten, in case we wish to return to that system in the future (which isn't a bad idea, if we decide to go at it with a different angle). Each group of users is different, after all, and for all we know, a bunch of 11-year olds will show up and vote, despite not really knowing anything about policy. Ideally, that won't happen, but you never know.