21:02 <@ChrisCF> Calling the meeting to order, rules as posted on http://tt2.sf.net/wiki/index.php/Meeting_Rules 21:02 <@ChrisCF> First off, roll call. Who's active tonight? 21:02 < Zuu> me 21:02 <+Hellfire667> me ~ 21:02 < Mek_> me 21:02 <+jfs> me~ 21:03 <+Steve^> Cpt. Steve Hat 21:03 <+Steve^> ~ 21:03 <@ChrisCF> that's 6 active so far,, this looks good for later 21:03 <@ChrisCF> any volunteers for chair and secretary? 21:04 <+Hellfire667> I'll take a shot at the minutes. 21:04 <@ChrisCF> that would be one minute 21:05 <+Hellfire667> Heh.. 21:05 <@ChrisCF> with no other volunteers, any objection to me taking the chair? 21:05 < Zuu> nope~ 21:05 < Mek_> nope 21:05 <+Hellfire667> No objections here. (I wanted to suggest that ;) ) ~ 21:05 * ChrisCF sits down 21:05 * Prof_Frink pulles the chair away 21:05 -!- Prof_Frink is now known as Prof_Food 21:05 * Hellfire667 slaps Prof_Food around a bit with a large trout 21:05 <@ChrisCF> anyone not read the minutes of the last meeting? 21:06 * Steve^ puts up his hand 21:06 * Mek_ als didn't read them really carefully :) 21:06 * Hellfire667 has read them. 21:06 <@ChrisCF> http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?p=266890 21:07 -!- Born_Acorn [bornacorn@ACBC4A74.ipt.aol.com] has quit [Signed off] 21:07 <@ChrisCF> Anybody disagree the minutes as a good record of last time? 21:08 <@ChrisCF> No, good. 21:08 <+jfs> look fine to me~ 21:08 <@ChrisCF> since there's nothing in there worth discussing that we're not already down to tackle tonight, on we go ... 21:09 <@ChrisCF> 4. Design Document 21:09 <@ChrisCF> Now, it's difficult to summarise the whole process of counting the vote, so the long and short of it: 21:09 <@ChrisCF> Owen received 9 ballots. After counting them, the same two people come out on top 21:10 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:10 <@ChrisCF> Last time we had enough floating votes to decide it, and this time we don't have enough ballots, so we still don't have a mandate, but I propose that given both ballots are the same, we accept this result, and propose a vote on this. ~ 21:10 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:11 < Mek_> what exactly is the result? 21:11 <+Hellfire667> Who are "the same two people"? ~ 21:11 <+Hellfire667> ! Hey! It was my turn! ~ 21:12 <+Hellfire667> Never mind... I already looked it up myself: uzurpator and Hellfire. ~ 21:12 * Steve^ checks ChrisCF's pulse ~ 21:12 <@ChrisCF> For the record, uzurpator and Hellfire667 win without mandate under the "last-man-standing" principle in STV - i.e. once you're left with only enough people to fill the seats, those people get them. 21:12 <@ChrisCF> ~ 21:13 <@ChrisCF> I say "without mandate", since neither person made the number of votes needed (8) 21:14 <@ChrisCF> Vote: "We accept this result, and appoint Hellfire and Uzurpator to the DD." Yes/No 21:15 < Zuu> Yes 21:15 <+jfs> yes~ 21:15 <+Steve^> Yes. I accepted it last week. ~ 21:15 <+Hellfire667> Yes ~ 21:15 <@ChrisCF> Yes. 21:15 <@ChrisCF> That's fairly safe consensus, not enough people here not voted to take that below 66%, so motion carried. 21:17 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire and Uzurpator are in charge of the DD, anyone else that wishes to support should approach them before doing anything with it. ~ 21:17 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:17 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:17 <+Hellfire667> Should we write the document using the wiki or should we use some other medium and only post progress in large bulks on the wiki? 21:17 <+Hellfire667> ~ 21:17 <+jfs> -> 21:18 <@ChrisCF> I believe that is a matter for the DD working group to decide :) ~ 21:18 <@ChrisCF> jfs: 21:18 <+jfs> when i first suggested a new DD, i also suggested keeping the DD secret until a complete draft was ready, and only post some kinds of progress reports 21:19 <+jfs> mainly because direct outside comments might slow down the process, i think~ 21:20 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:20 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:21 <+Hellfire667> Well I guess that uzurpator and I start working on it and only report how much we have written, but not what we have written. Are there any objections against that? ~ 21:21 <+Steve^> No ~ 21:21 < Zuu> No~ 21:21 <+jfs> for me, obviously no~ 21:22 <@ChrisCF> Do we have any safeguards that you won't both disappear? 21:22 <@ChrisCF> ~ 21:22 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:22 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:22 <+jfs> -> 21:22 <+Hellfire667> How about weekly progress reports? ~ 21:23 <@ChrisCF> sounds good. might be useful to have a home on the wiki for details on the progress 21:23 <@ChrisCF> jfs: 21:23 <+jfs> actually, when did we last hear from uzurpator? (my memory is a bit bad on that kind of things...) ~ 21:23 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:23 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:23 <+Hellfire667> I'll check on the forum... 21:24 <+Hellfire667> The last time he submitted a post was on 14 april... 21:25 <+Hellfire667> His last Transport Empire post was on march 25th... 21:25 <+Hellfire667> 24th.. sorry. 21:25 <+Hellfire667> ~ 21:27 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:27 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:27 <+Hellfire667> I'll contact him and see whether he is still interested. If not, the number three in the poll will be asked. Ok? ~ 21:28 < Zuu> -> 21:28 * Steve^ hides ~ 21:28 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:28 < Zuu> shouldn't it be no3 in the last vote? 21:28 < Zuu> ~ 21:28 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:28 <@ChrisCF> 3rd in teh original poll: pjay - third in this poll: steve 21:28 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:28 <+Hellfire667> That's what I meant. ~ 21:29 <+Hellfire667> So, Steve. ~ 21:29 < Zuu> I agee on that steve will take over if not uzu answers.~ 21:30 <+Steve^> -> 21:30 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:31 <+Steve^> ChrisCF, are you doing something else? You seem to have huge silent spots.. ~ 21:31 <@ChrisCF> Not really. 21:31 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:31 <@ChrisCF> occasional fact-checking (e.g. the poll results) and long lines, usually. ~ 21:31 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:32 <+Hellfire667> So, are there any objections against my proposal to ask Steve if uzurpator declines? ~ 21:32 < Zuu> no~ 21:32 <+Steve^> No. ~ 21:32 <+jfs> no~ 21:32 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:32 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:32 <+Hellfire667> Can we move on then, please? ~ 21:32 <+Steve^> Please. ~ 21:32 <@ChrisCF> ok. 21:33 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire and uzurpator to decide beetween themselves how to proceed. 21:33 <@ChrisCF> 5. Other tasks 21:33 <@ChrisCF> Not much said last meeting, since it was about now that everyone buggered off. 21:33 <@ChrisCF> Suggestions? ~ 21:33 <+Steve^> -> 21:33 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:33 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:34 <+Steve^> I buggered off because you dragged on about the voting. We should decide when things can be put on the forums, and not waste meeting time. ~ 21:35 <@ChrisCF> Good for you. Please maintain a vague degree of civility if you want to stay here. 21:35 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:35 <+Hellfire667> This would be a nice time for an actual website. 21:35 <+Hellfire667> The time when waiting for a DD, I mean. :) 21:36 <+Hellfire667> And having an archive of all minutes (and logs for those who read them) would be nice as well. ~ 21:36 < Zuu> -> 21:36 <+Hellfire667> (But that was all in http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14644) ~ 21:36 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:37 < Zuu> Shall we put some people on some tasks, so we don't have a list of tasks, that get longer, and longer, but noting gets done? 21:37 < Zuu> ~ 21:37 * Hellfire667 agrees. ~ 21:37 <+Steve^> -> 21:38 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:38 <+Steve^> Shouldn't we agree on those groups and their leaders first? ~ 21:38 < Zuu> -> 21:38 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:38 <@ChrisCF> -> 21:38 < Zuu> Haven't we done that yet?~ 21:39 <@ChrisCF> We can't create a group to assign to a task until we know what task we're assigning them to, and therefore, the people wanting to join it know what they're volunteering for. ~ 21:39 <+Steve^> -> 21:39 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:39 <+Steve^> But we can't assign people, if we don't have a group of people to get people from! 21:39 <+Steve^> ~ 21:39 <@ChrisCF> I don't follow you. ~ 21:40 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:40 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:40 <+Hellfire667> Steve: So we make a list of tasks. Then ask people to join the "assign" list and then assign people from that list to tasks. ~ 21:41 <+Steve^> -> 21:41 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:41 <@ChrisCF> -> 21:41 <+Steve^> Well, i'm not against that. It just seems to conflict with the idea of creating these groups we decided on in an earlier meeting. 21:42 <+Steve^> Now, these tasks seem very indepensant of everything else, rather than having some structure. ~ 21:42 <@ChrisCF> Would these be the groups which lots of people who misunderstood the original proposal think are supposed to be groups, but aren't? ~ 21:42 <+Steve^> Ok then, explain what they are. ~ 21:43 <@ChrisCF> They're a means of dividing *work* and *responsibility*, not a means of dividing *people* 21:43 <@ChrisCF> ~ 21:43 <+Steve^> -> 21:44 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:44 <+Steve^> Ok, lets just talk in terms of the work 21:44 <+Steve^> Where do we put 'Making a Website', without having the 'groups' finalized? ~ 21:44 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:44 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:44 <@ChrisCF> -> 21:44 <+Hellfire667> I'd say in the hands of one or two people who like making websites. ~ 21:45 <+Steve^> -> 21:45 <@ChrisCF> I thought the three-way division of the work was already finalised. ~ 21:45 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:45 < Zuu> -> 21:45 <+Steve^> Now your talking about people again. ~ 21:46 <@ChrisCF> True. Hellfire667, consider the question in terms of the three work types we have. 21:46 <@ChrisCF> ~ 21:46 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:46 < Zuu> I agree with ChrisCF, that I think they was finalised. (not that I remember in which meeting)~ 21:46 <+Steve^> -> 21:46 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:46 <+Steve^> http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=14074&start=40 We have finalised the names. 21:46 <@ChrisCF> For the record, they are ... 21:46 < Zuu> -> 21:46 <@ChrisCF> Steve^? 21:47 <+Steve^> But are we sticking with the leaders hastily assigned to begin with? ~ 21:47 -!- Prof_Food is now known as Prof_Frink 21:47 <+Steve^> (Code, content, management) ~ 21:47 <@ChrisCF> might as well for now, with an option on replacing them later 21:47 < Zuu> <- 21:47 <@ChrisCF> ~ 21:48 <+Steve^> -> 21:48 <@ChrisCF> Based on the discussion we had of what constitutes what, my feeling is that the website fits into the "management" area first, and possibly "content" second. This is only my opinion. ~ 21:49 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:49 <+Steve^> Now that i think about it, haven't the groups changed since the first meeting? Since the people agreed to the positions? ~ 21:49 <+Steve^> -> 21:49 <@ChrisCF> No, the groups haven't changed because there are no groups. ~ 21:49 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:50 <+Steve^> 1) I agree that website is management. 21:50 <+Steve^> 2) Why must you be like that? 21:51 <+Steve^> "No, the groups haven't changed because there are no groups." They are called groups on the forums, it is easy to call them groups. Why must you be picky? ~ 21:51 < Zuu> -> 21:51 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:51 <@ChrisCF> -> 21:51 < Zuu> May I suggest: 21:51 < Zuu> * Website (management) 21:51 < Zuu> * User interface (content) 21:51 < Zuu> * EmpireBot - our own irc bot (management) 21:51 < Zuu> * Create a list of systems avilable for testings (management) 21:51 < Zuu> * Setup development environments on our machines. (code) * Make a small demo using SDL, and CVS. (code) 21:51 < Zuu> task (group) 21:51 < Zuu> ~ 21:52 <@ChrisCF> Can we at least use a word that doesn't suggest it's a collection of people? 21:52 < Zuu> -> 21:52 <@ChrisCF> I would prefer to leave "group" for the smaller groups dealing with specific tasks. ~ 21:52 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:52 < Zuu> sure, but which word?~ 21:53 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:53 < Zuu> -> 21:53 <@ChrisCF> The best I've managed which is still vaguely simple without getting to "corporate" is 'work area'. I'm open to suggestion.~ 21:53 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:53 <+Hellfire667> "Area of interest". 21:53 <+Hellfire667> ~ 21:53 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:53 < Zuu> task organistion? 21:54 <+Steve^> -> 21:54 < Zuu> task group~ 21:54 <@ChrisCF> Steve^: 21:54 <@ChrisCF> -> 21:54 <+Steve^> Area is alright.. as it's less letters than group. And that's what really matters. ~ 21:54 < Zuu> -> 21:55 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: "task group" is something we should be using for a group dealing with a specific task, alongside "working groups" that deal with continual things. ~ 21:55 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:55 < Zuu> I vote for Area then. (code area, content area and mannagement area)~ 21:55 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:55 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:55 <+Hellfire667> Area sounds fine to me too. ~ 21:56 <@ChrisCF> So, getting back to topic, .... 21:56 <@ChrisCF> do we all agree that website construction and maintenance should be within the management area? 21:56 < Zuu> Yes!~ 21:56 * Hellfire667 does. ~ 21:57 <+jfs> yes~ 21:57 < Mek_> i agree ~ 21:57 <+Steve^> yes. 21:57 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:57 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:57 <+Hellfire667> Zuu just put up an entire list of tasks and their suggested areas. How about we just comment on that list? ~ 21:58 * Steve^ is gone 21:58 <@ChrisCF> I was about to suggest that myself. 21:58 < Zuu> -> 21:58 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:58 < Zuu> I can post it again: 21:58 < Zuu> Ok? 21:58 <+Hellfire667> ! Ok. ~ 21:58 < Zuu> * Website (management area) 21:58 < Zuu> * User interface (content area) 21:58 < Zuu> * EmpireBot - our own irc bot (management area) 21:58 < Zuu> * Create a list of systems avilable for testings (management area) 21:58 < Zuu> * Setup development environments on our machines. (code area) * Make a small demo using SDL, and CVS. (code area) 21:58 * ChrisCF puts up the sandbags 21:58 < Zuu> ! 21:58 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 21:59 <+Hellfire667> -> 21:59 < Zuu> ~ 21:59 <@ChrisCF> Long comment there :) 21:59 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 21:59 <+Hellfire667> Lol... 21:59 <+Hellfire667> I have no comments on the list. Looks ok to me. ~ 21:59 <@ChrisCF> Anyone else want to comment? 22:00 <@ChrisCF> Anything which they think should be in another area to the one that's listed? 22:00 <@ChrisCF> Anyone want to reject any of them for now? Anyone want to add to the list (the preferred option)? 22:00 <+Hellfire667> -> 22:00 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 22:01 <+Hellfire667> * Concept art (content area) ~ 22:01 <@ChrisCF> *nod* 22:01 <@ChrisCF> Does anyone want to lead any of the tasks we have listed? 22:02 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:02 <+Hellfire667> -> 22:02 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 22:02 <+Hellfire667> I'll chose one when the DD is finished. ~ 22:02 <+Hellfire667> choose*. 22:02 < Zuu> -> 22:02 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:03 < Zuu> If you nead somebody to lead something I can take something.~ 22:03 < Mek_> -> 22:03 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: We need specifics on that list for now. ~ 22:03 <@ChrisCF> Mek_: 22:03 < Mek_> I can create a small demo using SDL and CVS i guess... ~ 22:04 < Zuu> -> 22:05 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:05 < Zuu> I can take website or User interface, 22:05 <+jfs> -> 22:05 < Zuu> althroght I am not an expert on neither.~ 22:05 <@ChrisCF> well, we're looking for people who will also be able to lead other people in working on those things ... 22:05 <@ChrisCF> jfs: 22:05 <+jfs> currently, i'm most interested in working on HCI-related things, that is website and UI as well 22:06 <+jfs> and getting a coding-envoronment set up, but i'm not the expert there, i believe~ 22:06 < Mek_> -> 22:06 <@ChrisCF> Mek_: 22:07 < Mek_> i think creating a small demo would require having a coding-environment setup, so i wouldn't mind that task as well... ~ 22:08 < Zuu> -> 22:08 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:08 <@ChrisCF> -> 22:08 < Zuu> Then you would be our help-desk for seting up our coding environments :D 22:08 < Zuu> ~ 22:09 < Mek_> -> 22:09 <@ChrisCF> I'm thinking that perhaps writing the small demos would be a task for people working on defining teh environment, so I suppose those two tasks could become one ... ~ 22:09 <@ChrisCF> Mek_: 22:10 < Zuu> -> 22:10 < Mek_> i wouldn't mind being a help-desk, and as i have windows, linux and mac-osx i could test al l the main platforms :) ~ 22:10 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:11 < Zuu> Perhaps either the website task should involve geting the wiki in to a better state, or we should create a task for that two.~ 22:11 < Zuu> ! *too ~ 22:12 <@ChrisCF> I'm not sure. You need to know stuff to keep the website running outside the wiki, but anyone can be a WikiFairy 22:13 <@ChrisCF> I'm thinking it might be better to keep the two separated, though I'm not making any executive decisions on these tasks. 22:13 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:13 <+Hellfire667> -> 22:14 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 22:14 <+Hellfire667> I'll add them as two separate things on the list. We'll see what happens. ~ 22:14 < Zuu> -> 22:15 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:16 < Zuu> As we don't get any more leaders now, it seams, maybe people should write which tasks they are interested in on the forums. 22:16 < Zuu> And then out of that we maybe can make a decission?~ 22:17 <@ChrisCF> Sounds good. Remember that each of the smaller groups should be able to get on with their own work, so maybe some will come to an agreement amongst themselves to change their leader, which I think they should be able to do, within reason. ~ 22:18 < Zuu> -> 22:18 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:19 < Zuu> if that is the case, send me to eaiter UI or website, and I try to start up something.~ 22:20 <@ChrisCF> While we're on this, as there have been a few people taking note of this, does anyone feel the need for a small group to take loving care of the IRC channel when we're not in it having meetings? ~ 22:21 < Zuu> -> 22:21 <+Hellfire667> -> 22:21 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:21 < Zuu> What would that be usable for?~ 22:21 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 22:21 <+Hellfire667> I don't see a need for such a group. :) (yet) ~ 22:22 <@ChrisCF> Does anyone object to the current workaround of making the topic open to change by anyone to avoid it getting out of date? 22:22 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:22 * Hellfire667 does not object. ~ 22:22 * Mek_ doesn't object ~ 22:23 * Zuu neiter~ 22:25 <@ChrisCF> One final proposal based on things I've been told: "Anyone leading a task group should have a minimum of voice status on IRC". I'm staying neutral on this one. ~ 22:25 < Mek_> -> 22:25 <@ChrisCF> Mek_: 22:25 < Mek_> i don't see why having voice on irc be related to leading a task group? ~ 22:26 <@ChrisCF> I think the idea was to make the structure here more accurately reflect people's status in the project, and some people like status symbols. ~ 22:26 <+jfs> -> 22:27 <@ChrisCF> jfs: 22:27 <+jfs> i think it's completely irrelevant, let's just use IRC modes for pure practical reasons~ 22:27 < Zuu> -> 22:27 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:27 <@ChrisCF> -> 22:28 < Zuu> I agree with jfs, else I would have renamed me as azuu to not get the verry last place :D~ 22:28 -!- Hellfire667 is now known as aHellfire 22:28 -!- aHellfire is now known as Hellfire667 22:29 <@ChrisCF> I'm neutral on this since while it is good to reflect the structure in all areas, I can't see us using +m for anything other than martial law. 22:29 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:30 < Zuu> -> 22:30 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:30 < Zuu> are we done with IRC?~ 22:30 <@ChrisCF> pretty much. 22:31 < Zuu> -> 22:31 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:31 < Zuu> I can take the role as leader for the website task, I know, php, and have made 22:31 < Zuu> a few sites, but I am not a very good designer. I don't know if I will be a goo 22:31 < Zuu> d leader, but if you don't like what I preform, swap me out then later. ~ 22:32 <@ChrisCF> Anyone object? 22:32 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:32 <+Hellfire667> No objections here. ~ 22:32 < Zuu> -> 22:32 < Mek_> nope~ 22:32 < Zuu> <- 22:33 <@ChrisCF> In which case, Zuu leads the task of building a website for the project. The responsibility comes down to you for gathering a group, and making sure that work is done. ~ 22:34 <@ChrisCF> Anything else at all? 22:34 <@ChrisCF> On groups or otherwise? ~ 22:35 < Zuu> -> 22:35 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:35 < Zuu> How shall we documentate each task? 22:35 < Zuu> shall each task have a wiki page, or, shall we make use of 22:36 < Zuu> sourceforges task manager?~ 22:36 <@ChrisCF> -> 22:37 <@ChrisCF> I would suggest that the SF task manager is used for recording progress details, though IIRC it works vaguely like a bug tracker. 22:37 < Zuu> -> 22:38 <@ChrisCF> My thoughts are that the central point for task groups, organising their work and communicating, would be on the wiki, which probably facilitates this better than anything else we have at our disposal. It also leaves the ability for people outside the group to suggest things. ~ 22:38 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:38 < Zuu> OK, that mAKES SENSE. 22:38 < Zuu> sorry, 22:39 <@ChrisCF> no problem :) 22:39 < Zuu> no use of the taskmannager then.~ 22:39 < Zuu> -> 22:39 <@ChrisCF> I'll double-check, but it might be a little awkward in that we'd have to approve everyone for use of it, make sure that some of the group are able to change the task details too, etc. 22:40 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:40 <@ChrisCF> Don't rule it out just yet. 22:40 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:40 <@ChrisCF> brb 22:41 < Zuu> I think we should asign someone to setup wiki pages for the tasks, templates or so 22:41 < Zuu> and a list of all tasks, and probably also one page for each area. 22:41 < Zuu> Perhaps each area should have a list of tasks~ 22:43 <+Hellfire667> -> 22:44 <+Hellfire667> (In absence of ChrisCF, I'll just go ahead) 22:44 <+Hellfire667> Sounds good to me. Are there any volunteers to setup those wiki pages? ~ 22:46 <@ChrisCF> I'll tend to putting up some skeletons for the areas, and at least setting up some templates for people to use 22:46 <@ChrisCF> as well as instructions on how to use them to generate bits for the page 22:47 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:47 < Zuu> -> 22:47 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:47 < Zuu> Is that a yes, ChrisCF?~ 22:48 <@ChrisCF> I'll leave it to someone in each group to make the actual page, though I'll try to make it so that all the pieces are there. So it's a sort-of-yes :) ~ 22:49 < Zuu> -> 22:49 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:49 < Zuu> SO shall we move on then?~ 22:49 <@ChrisCF> Anything else to be discussed tonight, before we close? 22:49 < Mek_> -> 22:50 <@ChrisCF> Mek_: 22:50 < Mek_> i don't really remember if a decision was already made on using autoconf/automake or hand-write Makefiles? 22:50 <+Hellfire667> -> 22:50 < Zuu> -> 22:51 < Mek_> ~ 22:51 <@ChrisCF> I'm thinking we can probably make the maintenance of the makefile a sub-project of the code ~ 22:51 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 22:51 <+Hellfire667> No decision has been made. I have done some research into autoconf and I must say that it can make your life a lot easier. It takes a small amount of work to set up, but using it is a breeze. ~ 22:52 -!- Born_Acorn [bornacorn@ACBC4A74.ipt.aol.com] has joined #transportempire 22:52 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:52 < Zuu> If we are going to use Gnu GetText, we must use autoconf/automake. And I agree with 22:52 < Zuu> Hellfire667 22:52 < Zuu> ~ 22:54 <@ChrisCF> Anything else? 22:54 <+Hellfire667> no ~ 22:54 < Mek_> no~ 22:54 < Zuu> no~ 22:54 <@ChrisCF> Right. Next meeting. 22:54 <@ChrisCF> Neext week, week after, or sometime later still? ~ 22:54 <+Hellfire667> -> 22:54 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 22:54 <+Hellfire667> I suggest in three weeks. ~ 22:55 <+Hellfire667> ->-> 22:55 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire668 22:55 <@ChrisCF> 8) 22:55 <+Hellfire667> I'll be in Paris in two weeks, so if it's going to be then, I can't be there. ~ 22:55 <@ChrisCF> OK. 22:55 < Zuu> -> 22:55 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:55 < Zuu> I think 3 weeks is OK~ 22:56 < Zuu> -> 22:56 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 22:56 <@ChrisCF> -> 22:56 < Zuu> but isn't that a long weekend? 22:56 < Mek_> -> 22:56 < Zuu> Yes it is. 22:56 < Zuu> ~ 22:56 <@ChrisCF> I thought the weekend before that is the long one. 22:56 < Zuu> -> 22:56 <@ChrisCF> Mek_: 22:57 < Mek_> is there a good reason to have all meetings in weekends? ~ 22:57 <@ChrisCF> ! So far, by consensus it has the greatest availability of people 22:57 <@ChrisCF> ~ 22:58 <@ChrisCF> next weekend is 22/23/24 april 22:58 < Prof_Frink> Yay! 22:58 <@ChrisCF> after that is 29/30april/1 may + 2 may public holiday 22:59 <@ChrisCF> the third week is 6/7/8 may 22:59 <@ChrisCF> (dates as fri/sat/sun) 22:59 <@ChrisCF> I can't find my mouse pointer :( 23:00 <@ChrisCF> Anyway, I don't think we need a meeting at least next week, since we've at least got things to do now. 23:00 * Zuu leds his unused mouse pointer to ChrisCF.~ 23:00 <@ChrisCF> 3 weeks allows the groups to pull themselves together and at least start. ~ 23:01 < Zuu> <- 23:01 < Zuu> -> 23:02 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 23:02 < Zuu> I suggest 8 May 18:00 UTC.~ 23:02 < Mek_> -> 23:02 <@ChrisCF> same time as this weekend. sounds good to me. ~ 23:02 <@ChrisCF> Mek_: 23:03 < Mek_> i agree, although i would prefer it a bit later, but that would probably be too late... ~ 23:03 * Hellfire667 writes down: 8 may ~ 23:04 <@ChrisCF> So, agreed 08-05-2005 1800 23:04 < Zuu> -> 23:05 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 23:05 < Zuu> Now, to late I have a suggestion, that we upload all minutes, and logs to the docmanager on SF.net~ 23:06 <@ChrisCF> good idea to at least get them online somewhere. ~ 23:06 < Zuu> -> 23:06 <@ChrisCF> Zuu: 23:07 < Zuu> and that we use the iso format for nameing. Ie: "meeting log 2005-04-17" and "meeting minutes 2005-04-17". 23:07 < Zuu> No comfusion on date formats.~ 23:07 <@ChrisCF> good point. ~ 23:07 < jpl> hmm, back here. :p ~ 23:08 < jpl> sorry for not being in meeting. :P ~ 23:08 <+Hellfire667> -> 23:08 <@ChrisCF> Hellfire667: 23:08 <+Hellfire667> Who will upload them? ~ 23:10 <+Hellfire667> "Niet allemaal tegelijk :P" ~ 23:11 < Zuu> ! as I don't understand dutch i suggest that it means "I take it!" :D~ 23:11 <+Hellfire667> :O 23:12 <+Hellfire667> Nooo... It's an expression used when no-one volunteers. It translates to "Not all of you at once!" ~ 23:12 <@ChrisCF> lol, ok 23:13 < Zuu> ! if I wouln't have had a big test on friday and other tasks to do, I would have taken it.~ 23:14 <@ChrisCF> in which ase, we'll record it as a management task, and see if anyone can give it to someone 23:15 <@ChrisCF> nothing else? 23:16 < Mek_> nope ~ 23:17 < Zuu> nope~ 23:17 <+Hellfire667> no. 23:17 <+Hellfire667> ~ 23:17 <@ChrisCF> Right. Meeting closed.