I am no more an editor (I used to be) but as I was here at the earliest times (which were more friendly) I dare to give my opinion. Again. For me this Featured Chess Variant is either to 1) shine a light on some original CV that we want to advise. Or, and it is a completely different goal, 2) award a special recognition to a variant which is attracting success.
If it is 1), no need to have this completely arbitrary process with nomination, seconding, etc. Why not requesting a third or a fourth nomination btw? In such a case I completely agree with HG, almost all featured games so far are from the same category (and I can't complain as it is the category I love) and it is a pity that Duck Chess, Shatranj of Troy, and more, cannot be elected because of this or that.
If it is 2) then this process is bringing nothing more valuable than two other lists we have already, that ranking the CV by games played on GC and that ranking the CV by number of favorite hearts (with or without the complex computation that you recently elaborated, which brings nothing relevant btw).
From my perspective what we have is a sort of 2). Whatever Fergus says, it is an opaque process. We know the list of criteria, but we don't know the list of pretending games and their position versus the criteria. The criterias are quite discutable but they have never been discussed for approval by anyone. We understand that it is not cristal clear for a nomination, as at the end, or better say every 1st of the month, we are looking to see what has been democratically elected.
As a joke, I propose Janggi, in its Northern set-up, for the next one.
I am no more an editor (I used to be) but as I was here at the earliest times (which were more friendly) I dare to give my opinion. Again. For me this Featured Chess Variant is either to 1) shine a light on some original CV that we want to advise. Or, and it is a completely different goal, 2) award a special recognition to a variant which is attracting success.
If it is 1), no need to have this completely arbitrary process with nomination, seconding, etc. Why not requesting a third or a fourth nomination btw? In such a case I completely agree with HG, almost all featured games so far are from the same category (and I can't complain as it is the category I love) and it is a pity that Duck Chess, Shatranj of Troy, and more, cannot be elected because of this or that.
If it is 2) then this process is bringing nothing more valuable than two other lists we have already, that ranking the CV by games played on GC and that ranking the CV by number of favorite hearts (with or without the complex computation that you recently elaborated, which brings nothing relevant btw).
From my perspective what we have is a sort of 2). Whatever Fergus says, it is an opaque process. We know the list of criteria, but we don't know the list of pretending games and their position versus the criteria. The criterias are quite discutable but they have never been discussed for approval by anyone. We understand that it is not cristal clear for a nomination, as at the end, or better say every 1st of the month, we are looking to see what has been democratically elected.
As a joke, I propose Janggi, in its Northern set-up, for the next one.