|
Sondajul al subiectului
Would like to merge your team?
Logați-vă pentru a vota sau a vedea rezultatele sondajului
|
| Autor |
Subiect: Team fusion |
36 replici
|
|
|
Quote ( Ioannis Kalogirou @ August 1st 2017,00:08:11 ) - The Point of the Suggestion is to Eliminate the small Teams with no Interesting from they 2, 3, or 4 members.!!!
...so will Merge 3 Teams to One 3+3+4, or else...
- The teams from 5 Members and More must be out from this Possibility I Thing.
:)
The idea is that two teams that fail to encourage managers to complete the 10 can merge and be more competitive.
With respect to money, the idea would be to minimize costs as much as possible
It is not the idea of eliminating small teams but of forming other complete teams
|
|
|
|
|
My idea is that my vote is positive. But the most interesting would come after this vote results for YOU. And it consists of which parameters will be used for the fusion of equipment. Many people are in their teams for friendships or ways to proceed. And it is not the same if there was a change.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Franco Sonatti @ August 1st 2017,01:17:49 ) My idea is that my vote is positive. But the most interesting would come after this vote results for YOU. And it consists of which parameters will be used for the fusion of equipment. Many people are in their teams for friendships or ways to proceed. And it is not the same if there was a change.
You are not invited hahaha
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Jensen Owens @ July 31st 2017,16:14:07 ) Us Pirates have 3 teams and we use an out side forum at no cost to GPRO $
Jensen, I think if you look it's 4 teams.
|
|
|
|
|
It's easy the idea is only to merge teams that want to do it. And obviously I do not know how teams with more than 10 members joined together, without consulting each manager with his team. Unless some equipment is handled arbitrarily as a dictatorship. EASY, 2 EQUIPMENT WHICH SUMMITS DO NOT GO 10 COMPREHENSIVE AND WITH UNION WINNINGS
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Rob Benney @ August 1st 2017,03:28:23 ) Jensen, I think if you look it's 4 teams.
My bad :)
And what a unit we are :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
The idea, as he has detailed better in the Spanish language forum, would be to be possible to directly merge/join two teams with few users, where
(# of team A members) + (# of team B members) <= 10
so the members of one team could avoid going all the procedure (and full cost) of leaving their team and apply/join the other in an individual basis.
Te idea of the reduced cost could be like, let's say, deduciting 500k or 1M for each member of both teams (to avoid the full 3M cost, as all the members are in fact already 'joined' and had paid their joining 'fee').
It would leave open which team 'adds' to which (or which one is the 'receiving', for purposes of maintaining the teams name, ID, and members rank order), yet both teams could agree and decide how to do it.
I, personally, yet I see it an interesting idea, would not be for it, as I think the cost of making it work (develop and implement) would not be worth in the end, and it could indeed discourage managers participation and involvement and maybe favour lazyness.
That is, being batch-moved as sheep between teems would be less desirable than each one than to move a bit and look for his/her own expectatives, search for potential, long term teams which could help with them, and join them. And 3M each is not a huge cost, be the change individual, or as a whole of the teammates (should they decide to join the same one)...
...or for both teams: if they don't want only the ones in a team pay the 'moving cost', both teams' managers could agree to found a brand new team, merger of the two, solving from the start issues as the name and who the team leader could be (for instance, that interested and able to pay for the 5M of the foundation, if that money were such a big problem).
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
