||Ah, here we go again. A new day, new dawn. A new age for AspectOS. I mean, not really, we've gone through 100 pages already and rising constantly. But to think we started this new age only February 19, well, it's… astounding, for lack of a better word. I remember the old days like they were yesterday. We were much more organized, much more active. Much more beautiful. I wish we could be like that again. Well, I reckon we could. You see, I heard a theory once that leadership was not relative, meaning that whoever leads a certain thing, etc. The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) or the President (Joe Biden), or, in this case, me or ABC, could do better than the other candidates of the vote for the thing they are leading.
I believe this theory, as different leaders have different mentalities, different personalities, and different actions or approaches they would take to complete a task. They have different motives, and even sometimes have different reasoning for wanting to be leaders. ABC is most likely going to state his in his speech, so I might as well state mine. My reasoning, my motives, my approach to making AspectOS like it was before. Organized, active, and beautiful. First, my reasoning for wanting to be the Co-CEO is that, as you may have guessed, I want to make AspectOS great, like it used to be. I want it to be amazing, glorious, and just generally based on user and employee satisfaction.
Now, how would I achieve this absurd task? Well, contrary to popular belief, it is quite easy to get a collaboration back to where it was before, back to its glory days. I would first widen the tasks list, and check on every member of this collaboration frequently, to make sure they are active. If, whenever I check on them, they are inactive, I will put them on break. If an activity check comes around, and they miss it, they will be temporarily removed. Also, I will talk with the high-tier BOD and try to work in a task-check system, to make sure that people are working on their assigned tasks. If they are not working on their assigned task at all, they will be removed from that task and it will be open for somebody else to take.
My motive for this is mainly inactivity. Most of the contributors aren't contributing, unlike before. I feel that the Meower controversy and how we gave up on the Meower employees made us weaker, not exactly weak but not quite strong. I think we should have ignored them and continued production, instead of giving up on their falling arguments. If I'm correct, this is around the time Meower was closed, so I think they were just mad, but I'm not sure. But the Meower controversy was our main moment of weakness and is most likely the reason why work on AspectOS is slowing significantly. But there are other reasons why we have been slowing down.
One reason why we have been slowing down on development is that we have not been enforcing the rules. Let me quote the rules.
The first rule is to be active. We require contributors to be active. They have to be willing to contribute to the operating system and not just go inactive for a week or two (unless they fill out a break form). We require contributors to fill out an activity check to clarify that all contributors are still contributing to the operating system.
Don't frequently spam or derail the thread. We accept some off-topic posts every once in a while but not frequently. We are working on an operating system, not talking like it's a chatroom. We only allow three off-topic posts a day (might be set to 2 or even 1) so contributors don't think that the collaboration is boring. We try our best to make the operating system collab interesting and we are trying to find new tasks.
Look back through the hundred pages this topic has, and find all the off-topic posts. Multiple people here are also inactive, but they are still in the collaboration. I understand this is what the revival form was for, to fix it, but it didn't quite work. As mentioned before, I have a solution to the inactive problem, but it's not quite easy to stop people from spamming or derailing. But I'll try my best to help. I don't want to be harsh or rude or anything, but if you want an active collaboration, you have, no, need to enforce the rules as actively as you can. This doesn't only go to AI, but also to all of “Da Owners”
That's another thing I kinda have an issue with. Why do you tend to call yourself “Da Owners” on most of our outside sites? That's kind of unprofessional. Maybe “The Owners” but, if you have an issue with unprofessionalism, why do you call yourself “Da Owners” instead of The Owners? I mean, professionalism isn't a rule, but you enforce it like it is. Again, I don't want to be harsh, rude, or anything like that, I just want to point out all of the issues I want to help fix when I become the Co-CEO of Aspect OS. I know this is going to hit hard on some of you, so I just want you to know that I'm just pointing out a few flaws that you could fix, and that I aim to fix.
Finally, I do believe that AspectOS is fine as it is, but even if it's fine if it's can be better, it should be. It's fine if you don't want to take risks sometimes, but you can't go the easy route all of the time. At least once you have to stand up to whatever you're facing and find a way to go against it, find an argument that solves everything, use strategies, but no matter what, don't always give up. Don't always lie on the floor, waiting for somebody to wake up and find you there. That may not always be what happens. I love this place, and I don't want to see it go downhill. Sorry if this is a bit too dramatic, or a bit harsh, but all of this is true.
So now, this is where I get off. I may edit this. I may not. Goodbye, and thanks for reading my speech.
Oh, I nearly forgot. I would also add a to-do list somewhere, to make sure that we don't forget to checkup on people, or host activity checks.