8

Let me know if there's a better place to put this (i've been looking for an area 51 meta site and haven't found one)

A three commitment max seems just a little restrictive to me. I'm currently commited to 3 proposals (the max), and each one is in varying stages of the commitment process. The one that's the closes will probably take another 2 months to get to the beta (if it stays at the same rate it's at), another one still has quite a ways to go, and another just started.

Given the long time frames on some of these proposal commitments, having a max of 3 seems a bit restrictive.

So, i guess my ultimate question is, what's the reasoning for restricting it to 3 isntead of, say, 5?

7

A commitment token is purposely designed to be a very limited commodity so that highly-engaged users will pick and choose and only commit to proposals that they really, really want to participate in.

The commitment level of a proposal is a measurement of how likely a site will have a group of highly-engaged users from day one. If we lower the value of that "currency," the commitment level will include a larger component of more-casual users who are less likely to follow through — "Sure, I'll show up to the opening probably; whatever."

That will make for a much less reliable launch.

If your commitments were to launch in close proximity, handling more than three commitments would become tenuous. If you are committed to proposals not scheduled to launch in the near term, you are welcome to redistribute your "commitment calendar" to put your tokens on sites which are closer to launch.

  • 2
    If you are committed to proposals not scheduled to launch in the near term, you are welcome to redistribute your "commitment calendar" to put your tokens on sites which are closer to launch. That's the BAD part. It is not very clever not only to allow, but to ASSUME that the users will have to meta-play to give the sites best chances to launch. See: discuss.area51.stackexchange.com/questions/2890/… – o0'. Sep 13 '11 at 7:16
  • If you are committed to proposals not scheduled to launch in the near term, you are welcome to redistribute your "commitment calendar" to put your tokens on sites which are closer to launch. I second the point that this is a bad component. Personally I think if you want reliability of commitment there's a tradeoff between saying "commit closer to launch" and "commit seriously." The fact that the former is advocated suggests that the number of allowed commits might need to be increased slightly (say, to 5?). – Chris Travers Feb 20 '13 at 1:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .