1. Last meeting Not much happened, no matters arising. Looks like it was probably right, so accepted. 2. Categorising the ideas [code][13:24:53] Ideas 136-187 aren't done yet, 132, 130, 129, 124-126 aren't done either, the rest is done ... [13:25:36] In the minutes: Hellfire will do ideas 124 - 194 <--- My fault. I was too busy studying my exams. Sorry. I'll do them this weekend.[/code] 3. Core features, revisited No changes to be made, however some brief discussion: [code][13:30:50] Is track/signal laying a core feature? [13:31:16] Depends. What are your ideas on that? [13:31:36] I think we should at least have subways and signals on bridges and tunnels [13:32:35] hmm, the question is how they they are represented [13:32:42] I wouldn't say that was a core feature, more one for a supposed railway module [13:32:43] Hmm. No, I think that's a good one for the ideas topic. Having signals on bridges and tunnels is a detail that should not be in the core features. [13:33:02] ok [13:33:24] if the track on a bridge is inherited [13:33:34] from track... [13:33:44] As a side thought, perhaps having bridges and tunnels represented independently of track, i.e. you have track which runs on a bridge, as opposed to a bridge which joins two bits of track (as in TT) [13:33:55] that's an idea, making a bridge, where you can then lay track over... [13:34:05] chirho: TTD is a bit more complicate [13:34:06] IMO (but I think this is offtopic), a bridge should just be a extra piece of map. [13:34:19] eXinion: that's exactly what I was thinking of :) [13:34:20] chirho: tunnels work as you describe, not bridges... [13:34:41] it would be more in the direction of 'object oriented' stuff :p[/code] 4. Design documents We need documents with LODs, so to speak. Once the ideas have been processed, we can start writing some [b]functional requirements[/b] specs, at a high level, from that some [b]design[/b] specs, at a lower level, and some [b]architecture[/b] specs, at a very low level (down to algorithms, data structures, etc.). Working copies of these documents can be held in a wiki, and regularly an authoritative, approved version posted to project CVS. Possibly using texinfo for the format of the documentation -> easy generation of HTML, PDF, and other easily-readable formats :) [code][13:48:04] It would mean lots of us would have to go and learn texinfo ... [13:48:19] (I already know a little tex, so it's not all that big a deal for me) [13:48:40] * eXinion too[/code] 5. File formats oliver not around, postponed. A [FIXME add link]topic[/FIXME] now exists for that discussion. 6. Recruitment [code][14:13:18] Do we want to try a new campaign on the forums? Do we want to try sourceforge's Help Wanted mechanisms? [14:13:55] We could try both.. but I think we need people that are familiar with TTD or TT [14:13:59] We could try a new campaign on the forums [14:14:15] Maybe topics in OT and the TT related boards? [14:14:31] Yeah, I notice that a good number of people don't read the OT board. ... [14:15:37] Lots of people read the TTD board, and I could "bump" the sticky in OT [14:15:44] But I won't make the threads because everyone in OT seems to hate me [14:15:56] (as if a sticky even drops ...) ... [14:17:51] Where else? [14:17:58] in the TEmpire forums? [14:18:01] Yes [14:18:13] General Transport Tycoon, maybe [14:18:22] And TTO and TTD ... [14:19:18] TTD is probably the best bet since we've already got one in OT[/code] So, I'm about to post something similar to the one posted in GTT, and stickied in OT. 7. AOB Q: How do you get added to the project on SourceForge? A: Ask me nicely, and I'll stick you on :) 8. Targets * Hellfire to draft a basic functional requirements doc: whenever we next meet * Chris to set up a wiki on the project SF web space: 17/07 * Chris to continue the marketing campaign: whenever Next meeting to be arranged. In terms of my part, there have been some issues with some of the wiki software I've been looking at which will delay the installation and testing of a decent sytem on the SF project space.