Thank you for all these questions Crow. I thought of some of them before posting but did not want to dive into some technical details, un less this is the direction we look forward to. Here are short answers that come to my mind right now. Again, this is proof of concept, feel free to derive or make it better.
1) This change implies Admin change the way they work too. If they dont, then it is useless. If they do change, the idea is still useful because as of right now everything is dealt with on case by case basis with individuals that do not communicate between themselves. This change brings efficiency and transparency, ie better understanding of bigger picture.
2) There will always be leaks. That being said, most of current leaks are between contributors and chat managers, or testers. If they are all included in the group, then its just sharing collective information.
3) We have to draw the line somewhere. Being chat manager is often underwhelmed and it makes sense to involve them more. Then again, this can be thought out. I used to make table of users being staff on several chats. Despite them not being managers, they could have a place too.
4) I dont know. Would you rather be a happy few within a group that decides of nothing, or part of a large group that actually has an impact? If we want collective/ community work, it makes sense to bring more people in. We could also setup rotations to avoid internal fights and / or have a better communication together.
5) Then just change who gets Verified or what is Verified. I was never in found with having a blue pawn. A small verified badge is enough and draw less attentions. I dont think there will be more scam either. Within the past 5 years, there was only 3-5 attempts of scam from official chat staff (0 from contributors, 0 from chat managers, 1-2 from wiki).
6) we cant depend on that but If they have an important place within chats, we MUST listen to them. Find them on chats If they dont use forum. This will be the leader responsibility. Forum activity will not be required, it is a criteria among others and subject to the leader and or seniors of each group to decide.
7) No idea. Either we draw clear lines to determine the groups, either we allow application. This can be thought out collectively.
8) If this is an issue for you, then its never worth changing anything. At my work, we recently changed some processes. We had to rewrite ~150 pages of documentation, and it was worth the change because it is way clearer now.
9) Users will understand slowly but surely. Contrary to what one may think, they are quick to understand changes if changes make sense. Impersonation will likely be the same. Not more or less. We are a tiny community and we know each other well.
10) Historically you are right but with no change comes the slow end of xat. If we want fresh ideas or changes, we need fresh system. I am personally not afraid to "loose" some sort of privilege or position If this implies to better work collectively and for xat. By your logic again, no change is ever worth.
11) Does anyone actually check Hall of Fame ? Do we even remember all of vols listed there? Thats just life, even some leaders are forgotten, what matters for me is what we do today. And anyway, we could make a dedicated old section for old ticket vols and a new one for new vols.
12) This is what it means yes. To be honest, there is no rational reason that ticket volunteers are more important than chat managers. All of that is just historical. There are special access needed for ticket vols but this is what seniors of that group of work would involve. Seniors do tickets and have higher accesses while contributors do wiki or user support, or have access to a simplified OST dedicated with Help stuff with no personal info of users. Again, this can be thought of too.