[21:15:02] ok [21:15:06] Im starting to get nervus for the meeting now. :) [21:15:08] /whois me and have a look [21:15:09] The meeting will start now [21:15:30] I expect PJYfjgas to join soon [21:15:38] * +eXinion sees his own addresss [21:15:39] <+eXinion> -s [21:15:51] <+eXinion> PJayTycy that is :p [21:15:55] can we do a quick check of who are here [21:16:00] eXinion is [21:16:07] Jpl, are you active? [21:16:16] * +eXinion (exinion@t-26-202.athome.tue.nl) Quit (Registered) [21:16:16] * eXinion (exinion@eXinion.users.quakenet.org) has joined #tempire [21:16:16] * online1.no.quakenet.org sets mode: +v eXinion [21:16:26] chirho? [21:16:27] <+eXinion> ooohhh coool :D [21:16:40] stll busy sorting fruit [21:16:44] <+eXinion> you have to *BEEP* Jpl [21:16:44] <+eXinion> :p [21:16:47] epistax, are you in? [21:16:49] <+Jpl> I am [21:17:06] Hellfire667? [21:17:09] yah [21:17:16] Mek_ [21:17:28] mfmeulenbelt [21:17:34] <+eXinion> Mek is away on MSN [21:17:44] ok [21:17:44] I'm Arathorn by the way [21:17:47] I know [21:17:51] <+eXinion> oh hey Arathorn :p [21:17:52] ok [21:17:52] Prof_Frink [21:17:53] negative, I am a meat popsicle [21:17:57] Maurits :) [21:17:59] <+eXinion> what's your real name Arathorn? [21:18:00] uzurpator [21:18:02] yup [21:18:03] <+eXinion> oh I see :p [21:18:57] Zuu, here? [21:19:01] hi pjaytycy [21:19:02] hello [21:19:05] just in time [21:19:14] yes [21:19:30] re [21:19:36] sooo - shall we begin? [21:19:39] so Mek_ and epistax are away:p [21:19:59] Agenda for Sunday, 28112004 @ 2015 UTC [21:19:59] - Discuss minutes of the 14112004 meeting [21:19:59] - Pick minutes man [21:19:59] - FRD (including questions about the adding--process) [21:19:59] - Comments on game focus [21:19:59] - New featured discussion [21:19:59] - Setting Milestones [21:19:59] - Project backup (including backup for minutes) [21:19:59] (- maybe some prototype-progress) [21:19:59] - Webpage [21:19:59] - Final discussion / AOB [21:19:59] - Setting new date + agenda [21:20:04] and don't kick me [21:20:08] * You were kicked by ^XP^ (flood) [21:20:08] * Attempting to rejoin channel #tempire [21:20:08] * Kick teller - Kick 1 sinds uw binnenkomst op IRC om02 17:17:51 [21:20:09] #tempire Cannot send to channel [21:20:11] #tempire Cannot send to channel [21:20:13] #tempire Cannot send to channel [21:20:15] * Topic is 'IRC meeting Sunday 28112004 @ 2015 UTC' [21:20:15] * Set by chirho on Sat Nov 27 01:02:37 [21:20:16] -L- [#TEmpire] Welcome to the Transport Empire forum! If you are a contributor and do not have a Q account go here: http://www.quakenet.org/faq/faq.php?c=1&f=51#51 [21:20:17] <+eXinion> lol:) [21:20:17] * Er zijn 14 personen in #tempire [0 +q 2 +o 0 +h 2 +v] - [21:20:20] <+eXinion> what else is new :p [21:20:20] bastards [21:20:30] anyhow [21:20:30] omg [21:20:36] couldn't you do multi-line input? [21:20:46] first time our agenda has been big enough for that :) [21:20:56] the first point: any things about last times minutes? [21:21:05] <+eXinion> nop [21:21:08] was our agenda complete yet? [21:21:10] Guess not [21:21:11] They were really good. [21:21:25] plz be pro-active and say yes/no without me having to ask btw [21:21:44] Then: no. [21:21:45] =>no, I made them [21:21:51] lol [21:21:51] no [21:21:55] <+eXinion> so? :) [21:21:59] chirho, no comment? [21:22:18] If I have one, I'll make it :) [21:22:29] majority has no comment, minutes accepted [21:22:31] <+eXinion> that's not being pro-active [21:22:34] <+eXinion> (or just active) [21:22:42] the next point (the most fun always): - Pick minutes man [21:22:43] I volunteer for making the next minutes [21:22:48] ok [21:22:55] <+eXinion> wow :) that's fast :p [21:22:56] I agree with hellfire [21:23:01] damn, I finally wanted to force someone [21:23:02] * +eXinion agrees too [21:23:09] *g* [21:23:17] enough :p [21:23:18] so, I can stop taking notes now :-) [21:23:26] yesm you can [21:23:32] I'll use the logs on JPL's site :) [21:23:37] Hellfire667, will you write Mek_ as absent [21:23:41] and epistax [21:23:44] Ok. [21:24:01] next point already: - FRD (including questions about the adding--process) [21:24:19] who wants to kick off on the FRD [21:24:20] * pjaytycy thanks Zuu for doing the rest of my minutes [21:24:31] ideas, I mean [21:24:36] <+eXinion> lol [21:24:40] that was nice indeed [21:24:42] <+eXinion> what's in sight is on the mind [21:24:54] How much ideas are left? [21:25:02] nothing if I'm correct [21:25:05] <+eXinion> none, if it's all good :) [21:25:10] :O [21:25:11] except for the "retained" ones [21:25:11] except 6 or 7 retained [21:25:20] * +eXinion 'll check [21:25:29] The ones in the tt-forums thread. [21:25:31] we even have 5 new ideas :) [21:25:42] LOL [21:25:43] yes, I was thuinking that [21:25:48] 261 have been added, where we only had 246 [21:25:50] 251/246 done [21:25:52] <+eXinion> damn, that wiki's slow ;) (hint hint) [21:25:54] *251 [21:25:56] around 102% complete [21:26:13] doesn't seem slow for me [21:26:14] * Vatso (ekke@217.112.241.10) has joined #tempire [21:26:15] which make me wonder if we need a total review for next meeting [21:26:18] * pjaytycy has another comment about the FRD [21:26:21] <+eXinion> well, what's slow?? :) [21:26:30] wiki ofc [21:26:33] what's your comment, pjaytycy [21:26:34] <+eXinion> 5 minutes per loading of a webpage is averige :p [21:26:38] I have an idea on what to do next. Wanna hear? [21:26:39] <+eXinion> i=e [21:26:48] pjaytycy first, Hellfire667 [21:26:48] yes - go for it [21:26:54] About slow: [21:26:56] The ideas that should be together are scatered around [21:27:18] For example on the gameplay page, a lot of ideas about how passengers should go from one city to the other [21:27:32] some appear in the economy section, some in the cargo section, some elsewhere... [21:27:34] * Hyronymus agrees, it's hardly readable at parts [21:27:38] Try with clasic skin. Fewer images and HTTP requests. Should be teoreticaly faster. [21:27:49] Most of these ideas are not complementary either [21:28:14] * pjaytycy is ready with the comment [21:28:31] that makes a thorough review necessairy IMO [21:28:56] what was your idea, Hellfire667 [21:29:06] ok - speaking of frd - did anyone read my design doc? [21:29:18] plz hang on, uzurpator [21:29:22] k [21:29:33] where did Hellfire667 go [21:29:35] uzurpator: please wait for your turn. [21:29:39] I'm typing! [21:29:45] <+eXinion> lol :) [21:29:47] can't you type faster [21:29:52] now you deleted everything :-) [21:29:57] :( [21:30:17] <+eXinion> don't be so impatient ;) [21:30:25] I agree with pjaytycy's comment. A review could be useful. But then we should adapt the parts that are not consistent or unclear. Also, the information in uzurpator's design document should be added in my opinion. [21:30:46] <+eXinion> sounds good [21:30:51] * Hyronymus agrees [21:30:53] pjaytycy: Select all - cut - type - enter - paste - continue ;) [21:30:56] <+eXinion> but if there are two conflicting ideas, which one do we take?? [21:31:00] what would be the best approach to that? [21:31:25] votre for every conflicting idea [21:31:28] Keep the options open. Describe both approaches. [21:31:31] agenda on next meeting -> sort confilicting ideas and elimnate one by voting [21:31:40] I think giving everybody a section to review would be a bad idea, just because of the scattering of ideas [21:31:48] if there are ideas where one side has a clear advantage, make a judgement call, otherwise use the talk pages to discuss major conflicts [21:31:50] ok, voting as mfmeulenbelt and uzurpator suggest [21:31:50] I think FRD should be choosen in a conflict. [21:32:15] if we use voting as the judge, we should close the voting next week I think [21:32:32] the 2nd week can be used to actually change the things in the FRD [21:32:32] Yes, but how will we find the conflicting ideas? [21:32:43] look at the dupes [21:32:50] * +Jpl sees a massive breakup to FRD.. [21:32:53] careful proofreading as well [21:32:58] someone has to find all the duplicated/conflicting ideas [21:33:07] I'll get some examples about the passenger movements [21:33:12] * Hyronymus volunteers for the others [21:33:49] anyone opposed? [21:33:51] also - another option is to write a prototype design doc made up of the ideas and then add/discuss ideas that are left out [21:33:59] best thing to try and reduce delay would be to find any conflicts which can't be decided on a judgement call and discuss them on talk pages [21:34:28] the problem with discussing on talk pages is not everybody gives a comment [21:34:34] usually if you agree, you don't comment [21:34:36] no [21:34:51] it's difficult to vote like that [21:35:06] <+eXinion> yes [21:35:09] Perhaps a poll on the forum is an option. [21:35:10] I think if pjaytycy and I pick out the conflicting ideas and present them on a page we are better off [21:35:43] And, we don't have to decide about everything yet, do we? [21:35:57] A poll on the forum is not an option [21:35:58] that's actually good idea - pick up all conflicts, make a separate page to discuss each, then pick one and return it to the frd [21:36:20] One decision, one poll, and if there's as many conflicts in there as I suspect their might be, that's a lot of polls [21:36:29] yeah [21:36:36] <+eXinion> indeed [21:36:54] true true [21:37:01] Plus all OT spamers might vote in the forum polls. [21:37:06] so who's for the conflicts being found and presented for an editors cut? [21:37:16] * Hellfire667 is [21:37:19] * uzurpator is [21:37:21] me too [21:37:23] * pjaytycy votes in favor [21:37:25] * +eXinion is [21:37:28] editors cut? [21:37:33] word joke [21:37:51] consider us as editors of the FRD [21:37:59] should we vote or not? [21:38:02] some of us don't use Word :P [21:38:17] (well, we were on a run of puns there) [21:38:26] the TE team votes after pjaytycy and I presented the conflicting ideas [21:38:35] OK [21:38:41] I agree. [21:38:55] majority agrees [21:38:57] * +eXinion agrees [21:39:16] now we have to set a timetable for this to happen [21:39:20] whatever puts us forward [21:39:28] I would agree, with the provision that we don't wait for everything to be found, since in theory it is improbable to find everything in a short time [21:39:36] pjaytycy, can you look for conflicting ideas before wednesday? [21:39:49] yes, I'll do it right after the meeting [21:39:56] provision acknowledged, chirho [21:40:01] it's not so much work if you have to focus on only one category [21:40:02] ok [21:40:07] I'll kick in tomorrow [21:40:26] it's more difficult if you have to find "all the others" :-) [21:40:28] shall we decide on a division after the meeting or now, pjaytycy [21:40:44] I would like to do those about passenger movement [21:40:47] in which case, present some findings on Wednesday, and people can vote on the conflicts you have found by then [21:40:51] there are a lot of them [21:40:56] ok [21:41:08] I'll sift through any others then [21:41:10] ultimately, if the two of you are agreeing to share trawling responsibility, you can decide that between yourselves [21:41:31] yeah, but maybe it's worth mentioning in the minutes [21:41:34] dunno [21:41:46] I'll add it in then. [21:42:08] now I believe Zuu had a question about how to add dupes in the FRD [21:42:22] you posted something on the forum today about that, Zuu [21:42:42] yes [21:42:55] gota remember it .. [21:43:19] what status dupes should get in the ideas database on Jpl's site [21:43:27] transfered or not [21:43:31] no [21:43:40] <+Jpl> a comment. "dupe" [21:44:12] dupe of #xxx [21:44:19] Does it matter? Now that we have all ideas in the frd, we don't need the database any more, right? [21:44:22] that would mean extra work, noone did that [21:44:31] hellfire - true [21:44:33] and I agree with Hellfire667 [21:44:36] Found my post. : Should ideas that dupes another idea completly be counted as included? [21:44:42] what's the use of the database anymore :p [21:44:48] I agree, everyting is in the FRD now, no need to work on updating the database [21:44:57] I agree that it doesnt matter. [21:44:59] <+eXinion> brb [21:45:08] what about Zuu's question [21:45:30] Should ideas that dupes another idea completly be counted as included? [21:45:36] I think it doesnt matter anymore. [21:45:40] well, obviously [21:45:51] since the idea has been included [21:46:00] ok, sounds logical [21:46:19] are you satisfied with that, Zuu? [21:46:21] <+eXinion> back [21:46:29] * pjaytycy never updated the database, didn't know that was possible [21:46:46] neither did I, until yesterday :p [21:46:48] * +eXinion did neither [21:46:49] <+eXinion> :) [21:46:55] yes. [21:47:08] were there any more questions/remarks about the FRD then? [21:47:25] <+eXinion> nope [21:47:25] Me and my design doc [21:47:28] I've made it the other way, but if you dont demand me, I wont fix it. [21:47:30] oh, right [21:47:34] uzurpator, go ahead [21:47:41] so - anyone read it? [21:47:53] I have. [21:47:54] should I attempt to add anything from there to the FRD? [21:47:54] yes, but only too long ago to remember [21:47:58] I did once, a while ago [21:48:09] when I was only looking, and not contibuting [21:48:10] i must admit I haven't [21:48:15] * +eXinion did a while ago too [21:48:15] Ive read a bit. [21:48:20] I've always been an advocate for joining the two documents. [21:48:21] yet [21:48:39] Hellfire - ok if so, how to do it? [21:48:45] it sounds logical to me to unite them too [21:49:06] It sounds illogical to me to have a design doc when we don't even have the requirements [21:49:10] we should merge information relating to functional requirements into the FRD, and nothing else (obviously) [21:49:27] Obviously, the result of joining the two documents should result into a document that is better than the original two ;) [21:49:31] and everything else on hand for wherever else it fits [21:50:01] chirho, you mean we can't just merge the DD entirely with the FRD [21:50:09] ok - I'll try to merge some ideas into the FRD. But I fear that many of my ideas are too detailed to be easily merged [21:50:10] clearly not [21:50:10] I think ideas in DD should be merged into the FRD. [21:50:14] <+eXinion> exactly [21:50:19] where does directory structuire fit into FR? [21:50:21] <+eXinion> the ideas should, but not the design [21:50:32] * uzurpator agrees [21:50:34] (for example) [21:50:54] so in other words: the FR in the DD should be moved to the FRD [21:50:54] * pjaytycy agrees with chirho [21:51:04] ok [21:51:06] directory structure should not be in the FRD [21:51:10] this DD has elements from a number of different levels, but could certainly be useful, so we need to keep the information that's in it [21:51:37] does it have details that don't belong in a DD, chirho? [21:52:11] difficult to say. [21:52:11] it might have, though I've not trawled the DD with a fine-tooth comb yet [21:52:20] Whenever we discuss something, we could look what is in the DD [21:52:27] can you and uzurpator do that for next meeting perhaps? [21:52:37] ferinstance in DD industries are sprawled in several parts - is this implementation or idea? [21:52:38] And, at that time, more comments on the DD will come [21:52:41] that = trawl the DD with a fine-tooth comb [21:53:18] well? [21:53:30] ok - who is going to do it then? [21:53:38] I'm too biased, obviously [21:53:40] * pjaytycy lost the discussion [21:54:06] don't feel sorry about that, uzurpator. If you write something you tend to be biased ;) [21:54:40] and a bias is always measured compared to another bias [21:54:45] ofc I am. That is why I don't want to update FRD from there because I'll tend to be too detailed [21:55:13] uless you want FRD to grow by 200% [21:55:19] can you go through the DD again then and see if you can add some things from the DD to the FRD [21:55:36] and use the functionality of things as yardstick [21:55:38] owkey - i'll give it a shot [21:56:05] Uzurpator : if you wrote very detailed things in your DD, we probably don't comment on them now, because we don't have any idea about how "good" or "bad" those ideas might be. [21:56:15] true [21:56:26] I'm sure those comments will come when we get to these details [21:56:37] but we won't blame anyone for that [21:56:39] you see - the problem is, that many ideas are in a form of the details. [21:56:43] that would be pointless [21:56:55] for instance - i base my view of industries on "cargo types" [21:57:07] yeah, that's surely too detailed [21:57:22] Yes things in the the DD was writen before the project has reached that state to deal with that. [21:57:28] so we're back at tile 1 [21:57:52] * Hyronymus is a bit lost now too [21:58:19] chirho, can you, in mortals langauges, shed a light on what a solution can be [21:58:20] ok - I'll try to explain the "Cargo type" concept in a seperate thread on teh forum. Then we'll decide if it's too detailed for frd or not [21:58:48] solution to what in particular? [21:59:07] to how the FRD and DD relate to eachother [21:59:49] ofc - the other way is to take FRD. Compare the ideas from FRD with DD and change DD accordingly [22:00:27] anything which isn't in the FRD but is related to the FR, put into the FRD. Anything that isn't, sort out and "file" for later use, as it were. [22:00:36] ok [22:00:52] <+eXinion> Chirho: that's the best idea, in my opinion [22:01:00] ok, can you do something with that suggestion, uzurpator [22:01:04] or at least try [22:01:06] yes [22:01:08] Can I ask something please ? [22:01:08] How did the Design Document take form? ie: is it something uzurpator wrote on its own, or something based on a previous ideas-thread or what? [22:01:12] I'll give it a shot [22:01:17] The problem I see with the DD is that it goes into lowlevel details. But is writen by a sigular person. So it is a sigular persons veiw on how things should be. [22:01:17] Ultimately, it would be a good idea to make the DD obsolete by incorporating it into the project documentation, rather than having it continually modified in parallel with the central docs [22:01:24] ok uzurpator [22:01:35] Zuu - it originated from the ideas thread way back in 2003 [22:01:43] I updated it recently [22:01:55] But true - I'm the sole author as of yet [22:02:12] That would at least mean deciding on what we are calling our deeper levels of detail so we can get the leftovers from the DD into core documents [22:02:22] So, we have a lowlevel design because some user on the forum had "the idea" about how the directory structure should look like ? [22:02:27] please use the forums to communicate with us if you bump into stuff, uzurpator [22:02:48] ok - shall do [22:03:03] btw -could someone unsticky the old DD thread? [22:03:17] that someone would be chirho [22:03:23] doing right now [22:03:26] :D [22:03:41] everybody had it's say on the FRD [22:04:00] Isnt it aleady unstickied? [22:04:14] long time ago., [22:04:15] Well, I'm still a little lost about the (history of the) DD [22:04:38] no, until a minute ago, it was still sticky [22:04:42] it isn't there is "design doc 2.0" and "building design doc" - the latter one is the obsolete one [22:04:43] pjaytycy, shall we move that after the meeting or do you think it's important for uzurpator to know [22:05:37] dunno [22:05:43] the later is stycky, while the other is not. [22:05:57] the sticky should go under [22:06:04] neither do I. Can someone give a quick explanation of the nature of the DD as it arose [22:06:09] I just have the same strange feeling as Zuu about the DD, ie: that it's too detailed for what stage our project currently is [22:06:54] does anyone feel to comment on that? [22:07:26] Obviously, much of it is currently redundant, because we're not in a position to use it [22:07:31] pjaytycy - when the project started in january 2003 - so when the ideas started to roll in i wrote a document that included most of them. [22:07:44] maby [22:07:44] but we don't want to destroy this information which might be useful in later project life [22:07:53] I agree with chirho here. [22:08:07] we don't want to destroy it, I agree on that too [22:08:22] but is now the right moment to edit the DD according the FRD then [22:08:32] *according to [22:08:35] I don't know [22:08:56] it would be silly to do things good at first and better later [22:09:00] were the ideas discussed the previous time, before they got to the DD, or did uzurpator shift through them alone? [22:09:05] although that tends to happen ahyhow [22:09:18] I think we should solve the FRD conflicts first. [22:09:20] They were not - there were much less of them [22:09:49] Zuu has a point there, the FRD isn't really finished yet [22:09:54] * +eXinion agrees with Zuu [22:09:56] What I would suggest is that Adam's DD is frozen to avoid divergence, and we work towards cleaning the FRD to a point where we can implement some basic back-end stuff [22:09:57] it still needs some work [22:09:59] <+eXinion> exactly [22:10:16] * uzurpator agrees with chirho [22:10:26] that means the DD has to wait until the FRD is accepted as finished [22:10:33] ok [22:10:34] <+eXinion> precisely [22:10:43] ageed [22:10:46] agreed [22:10:46] agree [22:10:47] that's sorted then :D [22:10:48] ok [22:10:48] :p [22:10:50] In its current state, it is (from the perspective of old ideas) complete, but disorganised and therefore unimplementable [22:11:03] that's a good summary [22:11:11] -> What do we do with "idea thread 2" ? [22:11:29] good one [22:11:31] leave it [22:11:37] Add ideas, if they're reasonable. [22:11:40] leave it until when? [22:11:43] otherwise people will start thier own threads [22:11:47] Before anything else, our priority should be to get the FRD straight, iron out the creases, sort out the conflicts, and allow basic coding to begin [22:11:56] yes [22:11:57] ok [22:12:10] ok [22:12:14] Hellfire667, can you give a summary on the FRD topic? [22:12:18] basic coding can be made now :p [22:12:20] what did we agree upon [22:12:21] in the first post... is there a link to the frd? [22:12:26] yes, so the new thread will be ignored, and only act as a "get the new ideas here, instead of starting your own threads" ? [22:12:27] but really "basic" [22:12:27] or design document [22:12:32] I'll try... [22:12:49] * All ideas have been added, so we don't need the database anymore. [22:13:01] * Hyronymus and pjaytycy will scan the document for dupes [22:13:10] http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page [22:13:10] wiki [22:13:25] http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=10822 [22:13:28] design doc [22:13:35] * Items in the DD that are related to the FRD will be added to the FRD, the rest will be kept for later use [22:13:40] (is that last one correct?) [22:13:52] I guess so [22:13:57] yes [22:14:17] yes, and the DD won't be edited until we finished the FRD [22:14:18] the last file - is the most current one. And I'll relocate the ideas from DD to FRD asap [22:14:18] I think that was wat we agreed on. [22:14:48] ok, thank for the summary, Hellfire667. People still have comments on the FRD? [22:14:56] no [22:14:58] I'm done [22:15:00] he [22:15:01] <+eXinion> no [22:15:03] no [22:15:08] nope [22:15:12] no [22:15:15] next topic then: - Comments on game focus [22:15:19] On a related note, we need to establish what our other documents will be, and set some milestones (for AOB later) [22:15:40] I created a voting table on the wiki for the game focus [22:15:42] can you remind us of that when we reach AOB, chirho? [22:15:50] did we all vote? [22:15:58] I didn't get much feedback about the different categories, so I guess they were OK ? [22:16:08] AOB? [22:16:22] AOB = Any Other Business = last point on agenda [22:16:29] Ive made a summary http://tt2.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Game_focus [22:16:35] ow ok [22:16:57] Hyronymus: order plz. [22:17:03] ORDER, DAMNED [22:17:12] :D [22:17:26] I asked if everyone voted [22:17:33] who voted? [22:17:36] I have voted [22:17:36] * Hyronymus did [22:17:40] * Hellfire667 has not... [22:17:41] * pjaytycy did [22:17:52] no [22:18:05] naugthy computer science boys [22:18:17] * uzurpator did not [22:18:24] * chirho also has not, completing the CS stereotyping [22:18:26] is the summary complete, Zuu [22:18:27] I guess the voting table came too late to let everybody vote [22:18:29] Extract from table : PJayTycy, Zuu, Hyronymus, eXinion [22:18:46] I think so too, pjaytycy [22:19:11] anyone want to discuss the results? [22:19:13] H*LY SH*T!! That's really a lot of changes in the wiki today! [22:19:16] since we're at AOB (are we?) - anyone has drawn production chains? - since FRD mentions types of cargo [22:19:20] Hyronymus: I hope so. Exept the voting. [22:19:24] should we keep the table open for 2 weeks? [22:19:28] isn't aob something to save for the last? [22:19:38] this isn't AOB, uzurpator [22:19:41]