Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

BoD minutes - 4/24/05

Expand Messages
  • Paul W. King
    Attendance: Bryan (BD), Eddy (Content SB), Paul G (OGL SB), Paul K (TM SB / PL 2nd), Reed (QA SB) Agenda 1) Code 1a) no p9s left 2) Content 2a) nothing new 3)
    Message 1 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Attendance: Bryan (BD), Eddy (Content SB), Paul G (OGL SB), Paul K
      (TM SB / PL 2nd), Reed (QA SB)

      Agenda
      1) Code
      1a) no p9s left
      2) Content
      2a) nothing new
      3) Release
      3a) not present
      4) PL
      4a) nothing new
      5) TM
      5a) reports made to list
      6) QA
      6a) not aware of any showstoppers
      6b) have not had a chance to look at Sidewinder
      7) OGL
      7a) will review IKCG set now that Privateer Press has given us
      permission
      7b) will review sets in Step 1 folder in experimental for inclusion
      to alpha & QA8) open floor
      8a) random tables for treasure, weapons and armor
      8a1) 3 years ago, this was a d20 issue
      8a2) now that we no longer a d20 program, can we now do this?
      8a3) possibly do the creation off of the TYPE tag on equipment, and
      do a generation off of an items cost and/or `+'
      8a4) these would be GM-esque freqs
      8b) becoming a publisher
      8b1) brief discussion of putting together a `Netbook of XXX' to cover
      items not yet committed to paper
      8b2) no action taken
      8c) Sidewinder
      8c1) Eddy will talk to Eric about moving this set to `d20ogl'
      8d) Xcrawl
      8d1) this set will remain alpha because of code requirements to make
      it functional
      8e) data bug
      8e1) Eddy will talk to Eric about fixing a spell that is missing the
      (CASTERLEVEL) information
      8f) data standardization
      8f1) post 5.8, data team will look into completing the
      standardization work started by Eddy and Chris
      8g) 5.8 write-ups
      8g1) reminder to all SBs to get a write-up of changes from 5.6 to 5.8
      into Eric for 5.8 release notes
      8h) Devon's laundry list
      8h1) Devon had talked about a laundry list of proposed code changes
      for 5.10.
      8h2) since Devon was not present, list was not discussed

      ===

      Paul W. King
      TM SB, OGL/PL Chimp Data Gibbon, BoD
    • Tir Gwaith
      ... This set should NOT have been moved the /d20ogl until the references were changed to .MODs. It is mostly a snapshot of the RSRD at a point in time, and
      Message 2 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        > 8c) Sidewinder
        > 8c1) Eddy will talk to Eric about moving this set to `d20ogl'

        This set should NOT have been moved the /d20ogl until the references were
        changed to .MODs. It is mostly a snapshot of the RSRD at a point in time,
        and any upgrades to the RSRD will not be reflected in that set. This was
        the original reason the set did not go into /d20ogl, and just because there
        is a stable release coming up is not a reason to change that.

        In actually, the time needed to convert the set is what should be happening
        now instead of shoving it under the rug. Doing that in the past is what
        comes back to haunt us months later.

        Just voting something stable in the BoD doesn't improve a set's quality.

        Tir Gwaith
        LST Chimp
      • Eddy Anthony
        ... Why not? Just because it has not been tied to the core MSRD data does not mean that it is not stable , it just means that it will not benefit from
        Message 3 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On 4/26/05 4:34 PM, "Tir Gwaith" <thoron-tir-gwaith@...> wrote:

          >> 8c) Sidewinder
          >> 8c1) Eddy will talk to Eric about moving this set to `d20ogl'
          >
          > This set should NOT have been moved the /d20ogl until the references were
          > changed to .MODs.

          Why not? Just because it has not been tied to the core MSRD data does not
          mean that it is not 'stable', it just means that it will not benefit from
          improvements to the MSRD as they are made. .MODing this set is not required
          for it to function.

          I'll grant you that this set has not had the full debugging treatment
          normally required for a set to be promoted to stable but I have reasons for
          doing this anyway.

          The main reason for doing this is that if we did not we would have a
          selectable gameMode in the production release with 0 datasets available for
          it and I just don't like that. I'm treating it as Core data, since that in
          essence is what it is. You'll notice I did not promote the supplemental
          dataset which was submitted with it, that remains in Alpha. As a core
          dataset I'm hoping that the increased exposure inclusion in the production
          release will bring may aid in debugging and refining this set, it has not
          received much attention, indeed months went by before I learned it had been
          originally committed in a completely broken state.

          Yes I am aware of the probability of bugs from this release haunting us over
          the many months between production releases, but I guess that will be my
          cross to bare.
          --
          ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
          ~ PCGen Content Silverback
        • Tir Gwaith
          The history of /permissioned and /d20ogl (or why there are both of those folders): Mostly cause we got to a point where we didn t know what datasets were good,
          Message 4 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            The history of /permissioned and /d20ogl (or why there are both of those
            folders): Mostly cause we got to a point where we didn't know what datasets
            were good, and which needed serious work. Ok, that's not all of it (OGL
            was another major factor). We moved those we knew (ie. tested out) over
            into /d20ogl. Those files were both well working, and OGL compliant.
            /permissioned contained (and still contains) sets that have not had that
            scrutiny. Nothing wrong with including them in stable, except that it isn't
            known how good they are. (Yes, this is something we have not done as
            thoroughly this stable release cycle as I have done in the past.)

            There is no hard and fast rule that things in /alpha can't be distributed
            with a production release. Same with things in /d20ogl, in fact (code
            changes can completely make a dataset buggy as well).

            Keeping it in /alpha, keeps the flag on that the set needs work. I'm not
            saying I'm objecting to the dataset (or the second one) from being included
            in a stable release, since that is what we have for that GameMode (the other
            option is to not release that GameMode with the production release).

            There has been political (or PR) pressure around this dataset from the
            beginning. I get that. I don't see the reason to let down our standards
            which will make maintenance harder. I don't like to leave food around to
            mold in the pot, when I'm probably the one that will have to wash the pot
            out later.

            Tir Gwaith
            LST Chimp

            P.S. It won't be just your cross to bear, Eddy. There is a reason I'm
            balking now. It is partly mine, along with anyone else that takes pride in
            our work.
          • Michael
            ... ...and everyone who downloads the so-called production release. If you think that one developer is the only one who ll feel the pain, then you ve forgotten
            Message 5 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Tir Gwaith <thoron-tir-gwaith@...> wrote:
              > P.S. It won't be just your cross to bear, Eddy. There is a reason I'm
              > balking now. It is partly mine, along with anyone else that takes pride in
              > our work.
              >

              ...and everyone who downloads the so-called production release. If you think
              that one developer is the only one who'll feel the pain, then you've
              forgotten about the community.

              Michael
            • Barak
              Not happy with the quality? Get a group together and fix it before release. It s ONE data set... There are enough data monkeys that it should not be that big
              Message 6 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Not happy with the quality? Get a group together and fix it before release.
                It's ONE data set... There are enough data monkeys that it should not be
                that big an issue to get it up to snuff in the what, five days before the
                tentative final release is scheduled? And if a little longer is needed ask
                for it for goodness sake.

                The publishier has wanted it in forever, the BoD obviously feels it should
                be included. So instead of kvetching about it, and trying to obstruct it,
                why not make it happen????

                Barak

                PS: Michael, you're forgetting one thing... part of the community are the
                publishers too (without which there wouldn't be a reason for this community
                to exist). They want their data set included.

                PPS: Lest anyone forget, this is my personal opinion as I am no longer on
                the BoD, so don't take what I say as information/opinion from that group.

                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: pcgen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:pcgen@yahoogroups.com] On
                >
                > --- Tir Gwaith <thoron-tir-gwaith@...> wrote:
                > > P.S. It won't be just your cross to bear, Eddy. There is a reason
                > > I'm balking now. It is partly mine, along with anyone else
                > > that takes pride in our work.
                > >
                >
                > ...and everyone who downloads the so-called production
                > release. If you think that one developer is the only one
                > who'll feel the pain, then you've forgotten about the community.
                >
                > Michael
              • Eddy Anthony
                ... Thanks for the history lesson, so is your objection that it is not in the right folder??? ... Again, what ARE you objecting to? ... You ll have to explain
                Message 7 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 4/26/05 5:31 PM, "Tir Gwaith" <thoron-tir-gwaith@...> wrote:

                  > The history of /permissioned and /d20ogl (or why there are both of those
                  > folders): Mostly cause we got to a point where we didn't know what datasets
                  > were good, and which needed serious work. Ok, that's not all of it (OGL
                  > was another major factor). We moved those we knew (ie. tested out) over
                  > into /d20ogl. Those files were both well working, and OGL compliant.
                  > /permissioned contained (and still contains) sets that have not had that
                  > scrutiny. Nothing wrong with including them in stable, except that it isn't
                  > known how good they are. (Yes, this is something we have not done as
                  > thoroughly this stable release cycle as I have done in the past.)

                  Thanks for the history lesson, so is your objection that it is not in the
                  right folder???

                  > There is no hard and fast rule that things in /alpha can't be distributed
                  > with a production release. Same with things in /d20ogl, in fact (code
                  > changes can completely make a dataset buggy as well).
                  >
                  > Keeping it in /alpha, keeps the flag on that the set needs work. I'm not
                  > saying I'm objecting to the dataset (or the second one) from being included
                  > in a stable release, since that is what we have for that GameMode (the other
                  > option is to not release that GameMode with the production release).

                  Again, what ARE you objecting to?

                  > There has been political (or PR) pressure around this dataset from the
                  > beginning. I get that. I don't see the reason to let down our standards
                  > which will make maintenance harder. I don't like to leave food around to
                  > mold in the pot, when I'm probably the one that will have to wash the pot
                  > out later.

                  You'll have to explain that one. I've not heard a peep from anyone regarding
                  this set since the time you first committed it, I've not been pressured by
                  anyone regarding this set (or anything else for that matter). I've taken it
                  upon myself to do the data work to bring this set to the state it is in now
                  and it is because I take pride in this project and my work that I have done
                  so.

                  > Tir Gwaith
                  > LST Chimp
                  >
                  > P.S. It won't be just your cross to bear, Eddy. There is a reason I'm
                  > balking now. It is partly mine, along with anyone else that takes pride in
                  > our work.

                  So I must not take pride in my work?

                  I'm not taking that bait, I take great pride in my work. I have confidence
                  that the recent work I've done on the Sidewinder dataset has raised it to
                  release quality even though it is not married to the MSRD.
                  --
                  ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                  ~ PCGen Content Silverback
                • Tir Gwaith
                  Yeah, Barak, I get you. I m already trying to see if I can squeeze time in to get it .MODed over. And I m not suggesting we don t put it into release now.
                  Message 8 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Yeah, Barak, I get you. I'm already trying to see if I can squeeze time in
                    to get it .MODed over. And I'm not suggesting we don't put it into release
                    now. I'm worried because I've been in this situation before, and I'd like
                    to make the smart response.

                    This hasn't been mentioned before to the data team, and seems like an ad-hoc
                    decision that, in my opinion, wasn't thought all the way through. It hasn't
                    been a priority for the preceding months to get it to stable quality. This
                    would have been easier if we'd known it was a BoD priority, or that it was
                    going to be, a while back. Now we've got a lot of pressure to fix it at the
                    last minute, which has happened before, and which, quite frankly, I can't
                    stand, even though this kind of pressure has come up numerous times before.
                    We've been getting this kind of pressure from time to time, since before
                    there was a BoD.

                    I don't have much free time these days, so this is really under my skin more
                    than usual. Especially because the reason we stopped testing the set out
                    was precisely BECAUSE it was .MODs.

                    Tir Gwaith
                    LST Chimp
                  • Barak
                    ... I know that feeling. Tell you what, I ll put my time where my mouth is. :) If you want to toss me something from that set (and let me know what needs to
                    Message 9 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: pcgen@yahoogroups.com [mailto:pcgen@yahoogroups.com] On

                      > I don't have much free time these days, so this is really

                      I know that feeling.

                      Tell you what, I'll put my time where my mouth is. :)

                      If you want to toss me something from that set (and let me know what needs
                      to be done to it, since I'm not following the .MOD part of the
                      conversation...) that could be done in an evening (say about 4 hours), I'll
                      pitch in.

                      Barak
                    • Eddy Anthony
                      ... You re of the hook, I ve already done it and upped a copy to experimental. Now I ll leave it to the rest of the BoD to decide if it is to be committed. I
                      Message 10 of 14 , Apr 26, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Tir Gwaith scribed:

                        > I'm already trying to see if I can squeeze time in
                        > to get it .MODed over.

                        You're of the hook, I've already done it and upped a copy to experimental.
                        Now I'll leave it to the rest of the BoD to decide if it is to be committed.

                        I should note that I would have done this already but at the time I was
                        working on it (two months ago or so) there was a bug with .MODing a source
                        page in that it would not MOD the source, just the page number. I felt it
                        was unacceptable for the Sidewinder data to display MSRD as the source, even
                        though it is in one sense. We are referencing the Sidewinder book and it
                        should display the correct page numbers. So I left in all the visible
                        elements while importing the hidden components. This was recently fixed and
                        so the MODing can now be completed.
                        --
                        ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                        ~ PCGen Content Silverback
                      • Michael
                        ... Good idea. I beleive that s what Tyr is advocating. :-) ... Good point. I d think, though, that given a choice between their data set included sooner but
                        Message 11 of 14 , Apr 27, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- Barak <barak@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Not happy with the quality? Get a group together and fix it before
                          > release.

                          Good idea. I beleive that's what Tyr is advocating. :-)

                          > Barak
                          >
                          > PS: Michael, you're forgetting one thing... part of the community are the
                          > publishers too (without which there wouldn't be a reason for this community
                          > to exist). They want their data set included.
                          >

                          Good point. I'd think, though, that given a choice between "their data set
                          included sooner but b0rken" vs. "their data set included later but clean", my
                          money would be on "later but clean". On the other hand, my Jedi mind-reading
                          skills aren't what they used to be. Who knows? They may want it "sooner,
                          regardless".

                          > PPS: Lest anyone forget, this is my personal opinion as I am no longer on
                          > the BoD, so don't take what I say as information/opinion from that group.
                          >

                          Ditto. Lest anyone forget. ;-)

                          Michael
                        • Eddy Anthony
                          ... I m sorry that you have been given the impression that this is the choice we face, it is not. The Sidewinder set is in good working order or I would not
                          Message 12 of 14 , Apr 27, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 4/27/05 9:22 AM, "Michael" <java_kensai@...> wrote:

                            > I'd think, though, that given a choice between "their data set
                            > included sooner but b0rken" vs. "their data set included later but clean", my
                            > money would be on "later but clean".

                            I'm sorry that you have been given the impression that this is the choice we
                            face, it is not. The Sidewinder set is in good working order or I would not
                            have considered including it with the production release.

                            For those having a hard time following this with all the talk of 'politics'
                            the issue is this: Sidewinder is a wild west game which uses the MSRD for
                            it's core rules. When the dataset was first created it was done so by
                            copying the parts of the MSRD dataset that it used into it so that it was
                            its own stand alone set.

                            The main problem with this is that those parts of the MSRD are now
                            duplicated in a second set and keeping up with the ongoing changes to the
                            core MSRD and this duplicate becomes a management problem. The solution to
                            this problem is to import the used parts of the MSRD directly from the
                            dataset and .MOD any changes such as source pages and the like.

                            The work needed to tie the MSRD data to the Sidewinder set was begun but not
                            completed at the time it was committed. I recently picked this task up and
                            attempted to complete it. There was a bug which prevented me from completely
                            importing the MSRD which has only recently been resolved. Never the less I
                            did manage to tie in much of the hidden features of the MSRD, mainly
                            occupations which is where most of the recent innovations have been made.

                            The set as it is in the Alpha folder of RC7 is in good working order, it
                            just uses older copies of the skills and feats from the MSRD. But this is
                            moot anyway, the bug preventing the source tag from being modded has been
                            resolved and I've completed the .MOD conversion last night.

                            But this is not the major disaster it is being made out to be, if the skills
                            and feats were left in place as is for 5.8 and the MODs completed in the 5.9
                            line I doubt anyone would have noticed. It is certainly not enough to imply
                            a lack of pride in my work which I found personally insulting. As for the
                            data team not being in the loop Eric the chief data monkey, Lone Jedi the
                            author of the set, Reed the QA SB who has been testing the set and myself
                            were all informed of the progress being made. I never asked Tir because he
                            as much as asked me not to when he first committed the set. He was quite
                            bothered with how things went down at that time and I've respected his
                            wished and not involved him.

                            If anyone wishes to comment from an informed opinion just download 5.7.6,
                            RC7, run Sidewinder in each and compare. You will quickly see how much
                            progress has been made.
                            --
                            ~ Eddy Anthony (MoSaT)
                            ~ PCGen Content Silverback
                          • Michael
                            ... Cool. Thanks for the clarification. :-) ... Thicker skin, young Luke... er, Eddy. ... Michael
                            Message 13 of 14 , Apr 27, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- Eddy Anthony <eddyba@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > On 4/27/05 9:22 AM, "Michael" <java_kensai@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > > I'd think, though, that given a choice between "their data set
                              > > included sooner but b0rken" vs. "their data set included later but
                              > > clean", my money would be on "later but clean".
                              >
                              > I'm sorry that you have been given the impression that this is the choice
                              > we face, it is not. The Sidewinder set is in good working order or I would
                              > not have considered including it with the production release.
                              >

                              Cool. Thanks for the clarification. :-)

                              > ... But this is not the major disaster it is being made out to be, if the
                              > skills and feats were left in place as is for 5.8 and the MODs completed
                              > in the 5.9 line I doubt anyone would have noticed. It is certainly not
                              > enough to imply a lack of pride in my work which I found personally
                              > insulting. ...

                              Thicker skin, young Luke... er, Eddy.

                              :-)

                              Michael
                            • Tir Gwaith
                              This is going off list. It went too far on list, and started all because an email I sent, and tracker comment got brushed off, and I didn t feel the person
                              Message 14 of 14 , Apr 27, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                This is going off list. It went too far on list, and started all because an
                                email I sent, and tracker comment got brushed off, and I didn't feel the
                                person talking was understanding what I was saying.

                                Tir Gwaith
                                LST Chimp
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.