Re: [crossfire] Leaderships(s?) (was Re: Platform statement)
quoth Nicolas Weeger as of Wed, 14 Jan 2009 19:01:13 +0100: As you said, this isn't a democracy, and latest discussions (and the lack of conclusions) should show that we need someone to actually decide when needed I have never seen a Free or Open Source project that actually reaches conclusions in the mailing list on a regular basis. Still, most do get things done. Also, I haven't said it isn't a democracy. It is. What I have said is that it isn't a representative democracy. We don't elect our officials and then just sit back and expect things to work. FOSS is not driven by consensus. It's driven by rough consensus. There is someone (and I'm saying this in agreement with you, not in disagreement) that looks at the discussion in the mailing list, IRC, etc, and makes a decision based on that. Usually, based on what he or she believes is the consensus, but sometimes, the leader decides something based on his or her own judgement, ignoring what other people said. so a gameplay leader, and a content leader, both are needed. No, sorry, but no. A gameplay leader and a content leader, both WOULD BE NICE. They're not needed. Honestly, this would all be good if we had people to take all these roles. But do we? This leadership discussion has been going on for quite a while, and we still don't have someone firmly taking the code leadership, which was the first such position to be proposed. What do you *really* want, without fancy discourse? You want to be responsible only for technical coding decisions, and have someone else take the heat for everything else? If that's what it takes to see work start getting done, I'm fine with being that person. And we still have Mark, who volunteered to remain as a final-instance arbiter. best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. - http://lalomartins.info/ GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Leaderships(s?) (was Re: Platform statement)
So, tell me: - what should chaos attack do? - how are wc and ac related? - what is the meaning of speed 1? - I made a map with this and that reward with those statistics, can I put it into SVN? - who will decide? - I made a patch to enable players to create items from other items through alchemy, is it ok to be put into SVN? - who will decide? - I made a patch so poison attacks aren't a one shot, but actually poison the player for 1 to 10 seconds - who will decide to put that into SVN? - here is a pickaxe to destroy walls, can I put it into SVN? (not necessarily what does it do right now?, but what should it do in the ideal game we're making?) As you said, this isn't a democracy, and latest discussions (and the lack of conclusions) should show that we need someone to actually decide when needed - so a gameplay leader, and a content leader, both are needed. And I don't worry for technical leadership - there are enough people willing to code for Crossfire, besides the code is enough for now for most things planned in the next releases. Nicolas Le mardi 13 janvier 2009, Lalo Martins a écrit : quoth Nicolas Weeger as of Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:17:18 +0100: - content leader = handles the story part of the game, maps that are ok or not story wise, and such - gameplay leader = handles combat mechanisms, has a say on quest rewards and such, works on non combat stuff, ... - technical leader = ensures needs of content/gameplay leaders are met, and maybe planifies development and such PS: to reply to someone's mail, no, I don't want to be technical leader as long as we don't have a gameplay leader - and even so, I'm not sure I'd accept. Okay, sorry, but this is not going to work. For years, we had just one project leader. That worked in its time, then as Mark got busy with real life, things slowed down. Recently it has been proposed to have separate leaders for code and content. A volunteer appeared for code, but then the need for a content leader was played; quite reasonably, one volunteer claimed he didn't want to go far as code leader unless there was a content leader. So I volunteered to take the job. But now there's a third position that has to be filled as well? And even then we may find we still don't have a coding leader? Come on, people, we're getting nowhere this way. At this point in time, I don't think we even have enough people working on it to be talking about leadership. These are the important questions that need to be asked with regards to people resources: - Who will make content releases? (me, I guess.) - Who will make server releases? - Who will make gtk client releases? - Who will make java client releases? - Who will fix content bugs? - Who will fix server bugs? - Who will fix gtk client bugs? - Who will fix java client bugs? Only after those are answered, are we prepared to talk about adding new content, new features, or even massive rewrites. Oh sure, we could just declare 1.x abandoned; but considering all the cool stuff we have in svn, that would be a waste and a pity. All right then, to Gorokh with this. Here's my new proposal. Short term: I'm naming myself release manager for the 1.12 mini- project. I'll get a release out, code and content. The extra work in carrying the code release through childbirth may (probably will) mean missing the March 1st deadline, but I'll give it my best. I will *not* attempt to release clients, though. If someone wants to coordinate a client release, I'd be very happy and lend my support. (Kevin?) Medium term: I think the best thing to do, as far as separation of work is concerned, is to view this as a number of separate sub-projects: - Server (code and content) for 1.x - GTK/glade client (based on v2 I assume) - Java client - Gridarta for CF - Server (code and content) for 2.x (possibly later) Each of those should have someone taking responsibility. (Gridarta already does, and the Java client unofficially does too.) The necessity of a master overseer over the whole project is arguable; I think the sub-project leaders can work things out between them. But for now, let's concentrate on a release. My hope is that the work involved in doing that will wake us up, and that the right people for each position will rise up in the process. Frankly... this whole thing is silly. Free/Open Source projects aren't representative democracies; it makes no sense to be arguing about who will lead what when there's work to do and nobody to lead. Let's go get this release out. Please. best, Lalo Martins -- http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de l'aléatoire !] signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org
[crossfire] Leaderships(s?) (was Re: Platform statement)
quoth Nicolas Weeger as of Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:17:18 +0100: - content leader = handles the story part of the game, maps that are ok or not story wise, and such - gameplay leader = handles combat mechanisms, has a say on quest rewards and such, works on non combat stuff, ... - technical leader = ensures needs of content/gameplay leaders are met, and maybe planifies development and such PS: to reply to someone's mail, no, I don't want to be technical leader as long as we don't have a gameplay leader - and even so, I'm not sure I'd accept. Okay, sorry, but this is not going to work. For years, we had just one project leader. That worked in its time, then as Mark got busy with real life, things slowed down. Recently it has been proposed to have separate leaders for code and content. A volunteer appeared for code, but then the need for a content leader was played; quite reasonably, one volunteer claimed he didn't want to go far as code leader unless there was a content leader. So I volunteered to take the job. But now there's a third position that has to be filled as well? And even then we may find we still don't have a coding leader? Come on, people, we're getting nowhere this way. At this point in time, I don't think we even have enough people working on it to be talking about leadership. These are the important questions that need to be asked with regards to people resources: - Who will make content releases? (me, I guess.) - Who will make server releases? - Who will make gtk client releases? - Who will make java client releases? - Who will fix content bugs? - Who will fix server bugs? - Who will fix gtk client bugs? - Who will fix java client bugs? Only after those are answered, are we prepared to talk about adding new content, new features, or even massive rewrites. Oh sure, we could just declare 1.x abandoned; but considering all the cool stuff we have in svn, that would be a waste and a pity. All right then, to Gorokh with this. Here's my new proposal. Short term: I'm naming myself release manager for the 1.12 mini- project. I'll get a release out, code and content. The extra work in carrying the code release through childbirth may (probably will) mean missing the March 1st deadline, but I'll give it my best. I will *not* attempt to release clients, though. If someone wants to coordinate a client release, I'd be very happy and lend my support. (Kevin?) Medium term: I think the best thing to do, as far as separation of work is concerned, is to view this as a number of separate sub-projects: - Server (code and content) for 1.x - GTK/glade client (based on v2 I assume) - Java client - Gridarta for CF - Server (code and content) for 2.x (possibly later) Each of those should have someone taking responsibility. (Gridarta already does, and the Java client unofficially does too.) The necessity of a master overseer over the whole project is arguable; I think the sub-project leaders can work things out between them. But for now, let's concentrate on a release. My hope is that the work involved in doing that will wake us up, and that the right people for each position will rise up in the process. Frankly... this whole thing is silly. Free/Open Source projects aren't representative democracies; it makes no sense to be arguing about who will lead what when there's work to do and nobody to lead. Let's go get this release out. Please. best, Lalo Martins -- So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem improbable, and then, when we summon the will, they soon become inevitable. - http://lalomartins.info/ GNU: never give up freedom http://www.gnu.org/ ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Leaderships(s?) (was Re: Platform statement)
I have not enough SVN access to do a release. It feels like after all this time waiting without help to get my client work out its only natural to not flip out over someone else' urgency of the day, but, I was ready for a release a long time ago... no point in wondering what I am willing to do. I've probably made that quite clear to anyone who felt inclined to notice. That said, I have a real life, kids, high urgency project that is running over two years old now and ready to pop in a month or so... Not a lot of leftover bandwidth for thinking CF with that going on, and I suspect I'm not alone there. I'll be glad to crank up the scripts and chunk something out. :-) Have a good day... ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
