Sat 20:49:59 - <+ChrisCF> Right, let's start. Sat 20:50:26 - <+ChrisCF> 1. Opening Sat 20:50:44 - <+ChrisCF> Welcome, etc. We all know the drill. Sat 20:50:55 - <+ChrisCF> 2. Chair/secretary. Sat 20:51:03 - <+ChrisCF> Who's minuting tonight? Sat 20:51:14 - I can do the minutes, I noone else wants. Sat 20:51:31 - <+ChrisCF> not that we'll have all that much to say on them Sat 20:51:40 - <+ChrisCF> Any other volunteers? Sat 20:52:01 - Then I'll do them.~ Sat 20:52:10 - <+ChrisCF> Passed. Sat 20:52:19 - <+ChrisCF> 3. Minutes of last meeting. Sat 20:52:24 - <+ChrisCF> Anyone not read them? Sat 20:52:26 - <+Steve^> -> Sat 20:52:30 - -> Sat 20:52:35 - <+ChrisCF> Steve^ Sat 20:52:36 - <+Steve^> I think they were short and not to usual standards. ~ Sat 20:52:50 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 20:52:50 - I think the formating was poor.~ Sat 20:53:07 - <+ChrisCF> Who made those minutes? # Sat 20:53:10 - <+ChrisCF> ~ Sat 20:53:14 - <-- Sat 20:53:14 - <+Steve^> Metalcore ~ Sat 20:53:18 - I told you I was worthless Sat 20:53:20 - ~ Sat 20:53:37 - <+ChrisCF> Consider yourself slapped in the face for being a bad little Metalcore. Sat 20:53:39 - <+ChrisCF> ;-) Sat 20:53:44 - k Sat 20:54:02 - <+ChrisCF> Is there anything anyone feels is missing from the minutes? ~ Sat 20:54:06 - <+Steve^> -> Sat 20:54:10 - <+ChrisCF> Steve^# Sat 20:54:12 - <+Steve^> List of people at the meeting. ~ Sat 20:54:26 - <+ChrisCF> Any volunteers to rewrite them? ~# Sat 20:54:28 - -> Sat 20:54:32 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 20:54:34 - The agenda~ Sat 20:54:44 - -> Sat 20:54:49 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu again Sat 20:54:51 - I can rewrite them~ Sat 20:55:20 - <+ChrisCF> Any objections? Sat 20:55:22 - <+ChrisCF> ~ Sat 20:56:00 - <+ChrisCF> No? Passed. Zuu to take tonight's minutes, and rewrite last week's. Sat 20:56:15 - <+ChrisCF> 4. Design document. Sat 20:56:27 - <+ChrisCF> Who's leading on this one? ~ Sat 20:56:59 - <+Steve^> ! What? ~ Sat 20:57:02 - -> Sat 20:57:22 - <+ChrisCF> As in, who's leading this point at this meeting? Sat 20:57:24 - I can try Sat 20:57:33 - <+ChrisCF> The floor is yours. ~ Sat 20:57:55 - Ok, first 4a Confirm vote Sat 20:58:29 - the votings, Sat 20:58:36 - jfs: 3 Sat 20:58:42 - Hellfire: 4 Sat 20:58:54 - PjayTycy: 2 Sat 20:58:57 - Steve^: 2 Sat 20:59:10 - uzurpator: 4 Sat 20:59:24 - jfs, have witrawn his attendance. Sat 20:59:44 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:00:04 - ChrisCF~ Sat 21:01:04 - <+ChrisCF> By my reckoning, taking jfs out of the equation leaves 12 valid votes, however, his votes are enough to put any one of the candidates into the lead, e.g. if those voters all thought that maybe Steve was their second choice. ~ Sat 21:01:51 - <+Steve^> -> Sat 21:01:58 - Steve~ Sat 21:02:02 - <+Steve^> One of the votes for jfs was by me, so we could only draw. ~ Sat 21:02:18 - -> Sat 21:02:30 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 21:02:44 - So shall we re-do the voting? Sat 21:02:46 - ~ Sat 21:02:54 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:02:57 - <+Steve^> ! No! ~ Sat 21:02:58 - ChrisCF: Sat 21:03:04 - ~! Sat 21:03:42 - ~ Sat 21:03:44 - <+ChrisCF> I would probably suggest that we do, but since we're deciding on *two* people, we should use a preference vote where people choose their two preferred people. ~ Sat 21:04:04 - -> Sat 21:04:09 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 21:04:41 - I agree that preffered vote are more optimal, but phpBB does not allow that as I wrote in the forums.~ Sat 21:04:50 - -> Sat 21:05:03 - Metalcore: ~ Sat 21:05:07 - then we don't do it through phpBB. we find some other way~ Sat 21:05:08 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:05:14 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:06:15 - <+ChrisCF> My thoughts too. I'm sure someone (maybe even me) could put together a quick script to allow a secret ballot, and not show the results until the voting closes. Sat 21:06:30 - -> Sat 21:07:13 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 21:07:18 - Yes, but how do we make sure only developers vote? I Sat 21:07:33 - want as few diffrent acuouts as possible Sat 21:07:37 - ~ Sat 21:08:26 - ! but one for a good voting system culd be acceptable~ Sat 21:08:40 - -> Sat 21:08:46 - Metalcore: ~ Sat 21:09:03 - What about EmpireBot? Last meeting Steve said something about adding a voting system to it~ Sat 21:09:08 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:09:09 - -> Sat 21:09:25 - <+ChrisCF> Looking at the timestamps, I'll go first. Sat 21:09:28 - That wont work as we have to few attenders to our meetings. ~ Sat 21:09:41 - <+ChrisCF> *ahem* Sat 21:09:42 - <+jfs> -> Sat 21:09:46 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:09:57 - <+Steve^> -> Sat 21:10:23 - <+ChrisCF> I suppose if we gave each person a unique number, generated fresh for each vote, we could in theory prevent fake votes. ~ Sat 21:10:44 - <+Steve^> ->> Sat 21:10:53 - jfs~ Sat 21:10:54 - <+jfs> on a voting system, i think a "ticket" system would work. the admin of the system can create "voting tickets", which consist of perhaps just a single hash, which can be entered to allow performing one vote, and the vote can't be changed after that. ~ Sat 21:11:14 - Steve~ Sat 21:11:30 - <+Steve^> Firstly, Zuu should of gone first, as he has the floor Sat 21:12:05 - <+Steve^> Secondly, we don't need to discuss exact things now, use the forums. And quakenet has a unique ID system that we can use. ~ Sat 21:12:38 - -> Sat 21:12:41 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:13:09 - But we need a good voting system for votings off the meetings. Sat 21:13:32 - Perhaps we shall look on other projects and see how they have solved the problem.~ Sat 21:13:34 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:14:03 - <+ChrisCF> I was also going to suggest that the IRC auth is useless for a web-based script, which is what I was thinking. Sat 21:14:37 - <+ChrisCF> Not sure how we'd go about hooking up to the forum for authentication without actually hosting it there. ~ Sat 21:15:15 - -> Sat 21:15:44 - Could our sf.net acounts be used for auth.? Anyway, Sat 21:16:01 - shall we accept the current voting, or Sat 21:16:12 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:16:28 - shall we try to make a better voting system, and re make it? Sat 21:16:34 - <+Steve^> -> Sat 21:16:50 - I think which ever we choose we should impprove the Sat 21:16:55 - voting system anyway.~ Sat 21:16:59 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:17:00 - <+ChrisCF> I would strongly advise that we don't keep the current result, because the floating votes are enough to change it, as well as giving us a possible tie. Sat 21:17:09 - <+ChrisCF> ~ Sat 21:17:16 - Steve^: ~ Sat 21:17:21 - <+Steve^> I vote we use the vote and get on with our life. We need to do something, rather than the same thing over and over.. Will it help if i resign from the vote? ~ Sat 21:17:48 - -> Sat 21:17:53 - eis_os: ~ Sat 21:18:14 - Simple put an special email account up, Sat 21:18:39 - let a script parse it for a special vote topic and the actual vote Sat 21:18:53 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:18:56 - email = vote user~ Sat 21:19:02 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:19:54 - <+ChrisCF> Scripts aren't good at reading email. How would they identify which bits in the mail are names, and which of those are actual votes? Do we reject those that it can't parse but still present two valid names when read by a human be discounted? ~ Sat 21:20:19 - -> Sat 21:20:24 - eis_os: ~ Sat 21:20:59 - True, that could be a problem Sat 21:21:29 - well I think there are enough vote scripts that can be easily changed to suit your needs~ Sat 21:21:41 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:21:45 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:22:35 - <+ChrisCF> I've seen those which allow you to set multiple questions, but we'd need to be able to trust people to not vote the same person as first and second preference. Not sure if there are any vote scripts which actually let you record preference votes, but it can be looked into. ~ Sat 21:23:42 - Who are in favor for make a new vote (with a system that will be specified on the forums later)? Sat 21:23:45 - -> Sat 21:23:49 - <+ChrisCF> Aye. Sat 21:23:56 - orudge: ~ Sat 21:24:45 - With regards to the vote scripts, something that -could- be done, although not necessarily that tidy, is to create two separate polls on the forum, one for first votes and another for second votes. It is possible to see who voted for who, although not in the forum interface, and I could quite easily create a script to extract the votings for each user, with 1st and 2nd preferences. ~ Sat 21:25:06 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:25:15 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:25:19 - <+ChrisCF> Can you rig it so that people can't vote the same for first and second preference? Sat 21:25:33 - -> Sat 21:25:37 - <+ChrisCF> Particularly, the actual pairing of a first- and second- preference is important. ~ Sat 21:25:38 - orudge: ~ Sat 21:26:12 - Not really, that's where you'd want a separate vote script. But with the phpBB system, you could at least check afterwards if any double-votes have occurred, and if so, discount them or whatever ~ Sat 21:26:36 - -> Sat 21:26:36 - -> Sat 21:27:01 - Cant that be fair, just discount users who have voted twise on the same person?~ Sat 21:27:04 - eis_os: ~ Sat 21:27:22 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:27:57 - http://phpelection.sourceforge.net/ as sample could be used, it seems to have the feature you are looking for~ Sat 21:28:43 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:30:05 - <+ChrisCF> Well, if we eliminate someone from the running due to not having enough votes, and the second pref is for them too, the vote just gets thrown out anyway. Of course, if all the second-choice ballots get thrown out, we're no better off than a single vote. Sat 21:30:09 - <+ChrisCF> ~ Sat 21:30:41 - -> Sat 21:30:47 - orudge: ~ Sat 21:30:55 - Is it really likely that everyone's going to vote for the same people twice though? :/ ~ Sat 21:30:57 - <+ChrisCF> -> Sat 21:31:06 - ChrisCF: ~ Sat 21:31:20 - -> Sat 21:32:03 - <+ChrisCF> On closer inspection, that phpElection actually does electing multiple positions each with one candidate, and not multiple people for the same position. ~ Sat 21:32:37 - Cant we just give owens idea a try? Sat 21:33:06 - I think we should remake the vote. Sat 21:33:17 - meaning 2 in favor and 1 aginst. Sat 21:33:45 - * +Steve^ is gone Sat 21:33:45 - So anything more about the DD writer vote?~ Sat 21:34:05 - Okay then it is 2 in favor and noone against.~ Sat 21:34:09 - <+ChrisCF> We could try making one topic for first-choice and another for second-choice, on the strict understanding that Owen can supply the first/second vote pairs (anoymised) when we need them. ~ Sat 21:35:06 - -> Sat 21:35:11 - orudge: ~ Sat 21:36:04 - I can definitely provide the vote pairs at a weekend (sending them to someone else if necessary, due to my being away on Sundays when you tend to have meetings) - other times, most likely but I don't have access to a computer all the time. But it's definitely possible, phpBB-wise. ~ Sat 21:36:48 - <+ChrisCF> ! Sounds good. ~ Sat 21:37:19 - Ok, can we all agree on that owen will make a such script, and I (or someone else, if you like) make two new polls? Sat 21:37:53 - * Zuu agrees Sat 21:38:00 - <+ChrisCF> I'll go make those now if we want. ~ Sat 21:38:00 - * orudge agrees Sat 21:38:06 - * +ChrisCF agrees Sat 21:38:40 - * Zuu hand over the responsibility to ChrisCF to make the polls~ Sat 21:39:21 - <+ChrisCF> Are we done on the point of the DD? Sat 21:39:26 - ok, then lets se whats next.. Sat 21:39:38 - 4b What to do now? How shall we/the DD group proceed with the DD? Sat 21:39:55 - Guess that has to be postponed to next meeting. Sat 21:40:02 - <+ChrisCF> 5. Tasks to do in parallel. Sat 21:40:11 - <+ChrisCF> Anyone want to start? ~ Sat 21:41:25 - -> Sat 21:41:53 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 21:42:00 - Last meeting we mentioned the homepage, ui design, Empire bot Sat 21:42:21 - and a list of peoplse systems.~ Sat 21:42:38 - ! -> Sat 21:43:53 - <+ChrisCF> orudge: Sat 21:44:17 - Going back to the voting issue, I must apologise, but I've just discovered that the ID that phpBB stores for votes is for the -poll-, not for the individual result, therefore, such a script wouldn't actually be possible in the way I'd suggested. :/ Sat 21:44:40 - <+ChrisCF> So, we can't actually tell who has voted for which option? Sat 21:44:41 - <+ChrisCF> ~ Sat 21:44:45 - I would volunteer to write a similar script anyway, but due to time issues (going back to school, revision, etc) I'm not sure I could do it this next week Sat 21:44:46 - ~ Sat 21:44:47 - No Sat 21:44:48 - ~ Sat 21:45:06 - I misunderstood the phpBB data tables ~ Sat 21:45:18 - <+ChrisCF> OK. Do you know how to interface with the phpBB login data? Sat 21:45:27 - <+ChrisCF> ~ Sat 21:45:56 - Yes, I've done that with a variety of sites. If someone was to write a php script that interfaced with phpBB, I could link it up to the tt-forums database if desired, but I'm not sure I'd have the time to do this myself, that's all ~ Sat 21:46:49 - ! me doesn't like that to many stuff gets connected to tt-forums, the server is already not very stable~ Sat 21:46:59 - -> Sat 21:47:15 - <+ChrisCF> You may have to make time, since it would be less time for you to put this together than for me to install phpBB, set up a pile of usergroups, and then test the whole thing. ~ Sat 21:47:20 - <+ChrisCF> orudge: Sat 21:48:06 - Well, due to my laptop being dead, it mightn't be that easy during the week. I could potentially do it next weekend (Friday/Saturday), but I couldn't guarantee before then ~ Sat 21:49:16 - -> Sat 21:49:49 - Could I make another, less technical suggestion... a POP3 box is set up somewhere (eg, tt-f). Everyone e-mails their first and second votes. A trusted party then polls the results manually, providing them at the next meeting? ~ Sat 21:50:26 - -> Sat 21:50:37 - Zuu Sat 21:50:37 - <+ChrisCF> That's the way polls are taken on USENET, IIRC. Might be a good workaround. Sat 21:50:58 - * Joins: Born_Acorn (bornacorn@ACBC4F86.ipt.aol.com) Sat 21:51:17 - Eaven safer would be to pm a message to a trusted person, as eamils are by nature unsafe.~ Sat 21:51:18 - -> Sat 21:52:05 - <+ChrisCF> orudge Sat 21:52:12 - -> Sat 21:52:18 - As I haven't actually voted in the election, I will volunteer to poll the results if desired, whether by e-mail, PM or whatever. ~ Sat 21:54:12 - Perhaps we should try to find a short term soulution for now, and make it a task to create / setup a good voting system both for meetings and non-meeting votes.~ Sat 21:54:35 - -> Sat 21:54:43 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 21:54:57 - If we all trust owen, can we use him as a vote collector? Sat 21:54:58 - ~ Sat 21:55:41 - <+ChrisCF> Should be fine. The current memberlist for the developer group can be seen by everyone anyway, so verifying shouldn't be a problem. Sat 21:55:57 - -> Sat 21:56:03 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 21:56:09 - I suggest we vote by PM~ Sat 21:56:45 - <+ChrisCF> PM sounds good. Little chance of forgery there. I might also suggest that whoever collects the ballot *not* reply to people when they have received the vote.~ Sat 21:57:59 - -> Sat 21:58:23 - <+ChrisCF> Zuu Sat 21:58:34 - Can we agree on that (for point 4) and then move back to point 5? Sat 21:58:40 - ~ Sat 21:59:15 - <+ChrisCF> Only if point 5 can be closed in 5 minutes. ~ Sat 21:59:20 - -> Sat 21:59:47 - * Quits: Born_Acorn (bornacorn@ACBC4F86.ipt.aol.com) (Quit: ( www.nnscript.de :: NoNameScript 3.81 :: www.XLhost.de )) Sat 22:00:14 - <+ChrisCF> orudge Sat 22:00:16 - I've got to go now, so if you want me to watch over the voting, that's fine - let me know by PM or something, or stick it in the minutes of course. Sat 22:00:17 - ~ Sat 22:00:24 - <+ChrisCF> Good night Owen. Sat 22:00:26 - Night Sat 22:00:32 - !night~ Sat 22:00:40 - * Quits: orudge (orudge@orudge.users.quakenet.org) (Quit) Sat 22:01:55 - -> Sat 22:02:28 - Who will make the votings topic on the forums, that inform our developers how to vote?~ Sat 22:03:39 - <+ChrisCF> I suppose that I can do it. Since it's only you and me left, shall we call it a night?