Meeting 2012 10 30

Members Present:

• [Chair & Admin] Andrew
• [Code SB] James
• [Arch SB] Tom
• [PR SB] Paul
• [Ad 2nd] David

Summary of Meeting:

• 6.0 Slated to be released Next Monday (Nov 5th) - No Show Stoppers identified.
• Roadmap for 6.2 - Andrew will begin composing a list of Issues that can't be done easily or at all for evaluation by Code/Arch.
• Fundraising Ideas brought up, Paul will solicit the mailing list and Facebook for ideas.

Log of Meeting:

• [18:08] <@[Chair]Andrew> Okay, I think this all who is showing, let's get this going
• [18:09] <@[Chair]Andrew> *Bangs Gavel* Welcome to our Board of Director's Meeting on October 30th, 2012 (6pm Local)
• [18:09] <@[Chair]Andrew> We have a Quorum this evening :)
• [18:09] <@[Chair]Andrew> Our Agenda -
• [18:09] <@[Chair]Andrew> * Production Release - Any Show Stoppers?
• [18:10] <@[Chair]Andrew> * Road Map Plans for 6.2
• [18:10] <@[Chair]Andrew> * Open Forum
• [18:10] <@[Chair]Andrew> First off, a big round of applause to James who's been a tireless champion getting us to this point!
• [18:11] <@[Chair]Andrew> I think the JIRA Bug and Feature Count speaks volumes of the effort undertaken.
• [18:11] <@[Chair]Andrew> Alright to the business at hand. Do we have anything from any of the teams that would stop us from releasing 6.0 Next Tuesday?
• [18:12] <jamesd[Code_SB]> Thanks Andrew
• [18:12] <[PR]Nylanfs> Not from License or PR that I'm aware of
• [18:13] <@[Chair]Andrew> Data - Is Good for Release; OS as well.
• [18:13] <jamesd[Code_SB]> I haven't seen any reports of issues for code at this stage. So all good
• [18:14] <@[Chair]Andrew> Only one bug noted, and that was already understood, we need to make sure Eric got that removed from the docs.
• [18:14] <jamesd[Code_SB]> BTW: Release would have to be either Monday night or Wednesday night UTC+11
• [18:14] <@[Chair]Andrew> (CHOOSE:x|ABILITY=)
• [18:14] <@[Chair]Andrew> I'm happy with Monday
• [18:14] <@[Chair]Andrew> :)
• [18:14] <jamesd[Code_SB]> Haven't seen a report of that one - is there a jira?
• [18:15] <@[Chair]Andrew> No, but we discussed it during the flurry, and I think it was agreed to not enable it, and remove it's mention from the docs...
• [18:15] <@[Chair]Andrew> The issue was brought up on the List Help group.
• [18:16] <jamesd[Code_SB]> k, if you could send me a link off line to refresh my memory please it would be much appreciated :)
• [18:18] <@[Chair]Andrew> Memory refresher sent.
• [18:19] <@[Chair]Andrew> Okay, Road Map. With 6.0 practically out the door, we need to make plans what to do next. I understand Code is holding a meeting soon regarding this. Obviously a few items have changed over the course of two years.
• [18:20] <@[Chair]Andrew> I did some updating of the Data Team Wishlists, some 'we'd like' has become 'we need'.
• [18:21] <@[Chair]Andrew> Paizo is stretching the program to the max and sadly, a lot of the data FREQs and BUGs are down to Code Fixes only.
• [18:21] <@[Chair]Andrew> James - since you're leading the charge, what do we have on the table so far for 6.2?
• [18:22] <[Arch_SB]thpr> Let's back up a second
• [18:22] <jamesd[Code_SB]> Too early to say - I want to see what we have volunteers for before committing to anything
• [18:22] <@[Chair]Andrew> Fair enough.
• [18:23] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I think we want to get specific about what we need, and do that by identifying what rules constructs we need to meet
• [18:23] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I don't think it should be assumed that "we need X tag or Y tag"
• [18:23] <[Arch_SB]thpr> but identify specific feats/spells/whatever that we can't do in our current data
• [18:24] <[Arch_SB]thpr> We want to assess those items as a form of "requirements" and look at what solutions we want to assert for those
• [18:24] <@[Chair]Andrew> Alright, I can put together a list and why we can't do it today.
• [18:24] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I think that's a great place to start
• [18:26] <@[Chair]Andrew> Agreed. Unless we have questions, let's move to Open Forum.
• [18:26] <[Arch_SB]thpr> It might be interesting as well for the data team to collect the top 3 or so "worst constructs" of things that we can do, but get convoluted in the data and/or in the way the user has to deal with that rule/feat/whatever
• [18:27] <[PR]Nylanfs> Well the absolute "worst" case (at least from d20) would be a gestalt class.
• [18:27] <@[Chair]Andrew> Hmm, that might be a bit tougher to produce, I'll likely poll the mailing lists.
• [18:27] <[PR]Nylanfs> But I'm not sure what else we could do about that
• [18:28] <[Arch_SB]thpr> Well, we may not be able to do much about it tactically, but the point is to look at what is out there that are the biggest pain points.
• [18:28] <[Arch_SB]thpr> We may choose to say we have no solution due to X, Y, Z, but at least we are evaluating the big items
• [18:31] <@[Chair]Andrew> Any more comments regarding roadmap?
• [18:31] <jamesd[Code_SB]> Yes that approach sounds sensible to me
• [18:32] <[PR]Nylanfs> Nope, it sounds like a good start
• [18:32] <@[Chair]Andrew> This is going to be a big list :P
• [18:32] <@[Chair]Andrew> Open forum, any other business we need to discuss?
• [18:34] <jamesd[Code_SB]> As you've already mentioned in email Andrew, I'm hoping we can have a shorter release cycle for 6.2
• [18:34] <jamesd[Code_SB]> So I am aiming for the 6 to 9 months region
• [18:35] <jamesd[Code_SB]> That may mean we make more use of branches for larger projects, like we did for the ui
• [18:35] <[PR]Nylanfs> It's like to have a REALLY good release for the Ennies for GenCon next year
• [18:35] <@[Chair]Andrew> Getting some volunteers would be nice :)
• [18:35] <@[Chair]Andrew> Tom, you going to be available to donate some time?
• [18:35] <jamesd[Code_SB]> Well, 6.0 should qualify for entry
• [18:36] <[Arch_SB]thpr> Do we have anything that would be a large project at this point?
• [18:36] <@[Chair]Andrew> Template Engine?
• [18:36] <jamesd[Code_SB]> A couple that come to mind are the lst editor and npc generation
• [18:37] <[Arch_SB]thpr> fair enough
• [18:37] <@[Chair]Andrew> that's three right there
• [18:37] <[PR]Nylanfs> Especially the NPC Generation, I showed that to some people at GenCon when it was kinda available and buggy in 2009ish and they loved it
• [18:38] <@[Chair]Andrew> Shall we throw this up on the wiki?
• [18:38] <jamesd[Code_SB]> not yet no
• [18:39] <jamesd[Code_SB]> apart from as meeting notes
• [18:39] <jamesd[Code_SB]> We'll get to that stage soon though
• [18:39] <@[Chair]Andrew> I meant the list of issues
• [18:40] <jamesd[Code_SB]> The one Tom requested?
• [18:40] <@[Chair]Andrew> yes
• [18:40] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I think we need to have a discussion about what is appropriate there
• [18:40] <[Arch_SB]thpr> If we are really identifying what we can't do, that means it could quote a paragraph or more from a rulebook
• [18:41] <[Arch_SB]thpr> So while a summary list on the wiki may be ok, the detail may not
• [18:41] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I think the detail will have to be separate
• [18:41] <@[Chair]Andrew> I can manage that
• [18:41] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I'd rather err on the side of caution there
• [18:42] <[PR]Nylanfs> A summary of the mechanics is good. Anything more than that isn't really needed
• [18:42] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I'd also prefer something in CSV or XLS or something we can easily sort and move things around, which wikis are less convenient for
• [18:43] <[Arch_SB]thpr> Paul: My experience in the past is summary starts to leak into people trying to solve the problem and proposing specific tags
• [18:43] <@[Chair]Andrew> Never done cvs.
• [18:43] <[PR]Nylanfs> Post an example text at the top and the summary below
• [18:43] <[Arch_SB]thpr> I'm really trying hard to keep this to a discussion of rules "in the raw"
• [18:43] <[Arch_SB]thpr> CSV is just comma separated values. Alternative save format from any spreadsheet program
• [18:44] <[PR]Nylanfs> Discussion of rules qualifies under Fair Use guidelines
• [18:44] <[Arch_SB]thpr> that makes it a bit more universal than proprietary formats like XLS
• [18:44] <@[Chair]Andrew> Ah, I can do that.
• [18:44] <[Arch_SB]thpr> Let's start with CSV for now and then we can decide how it gets on the wiki
• [18:45] <[Arch_SB]thpr> if it's really long the wiki may not be that useful anyway
• [18:45] <[Arch_SB]thpr> once we decide what we will address or get to designing solutions then we can pick out the relevant items and post those on the wiki with the proposals
• [18:46] <jamesd[Code_SB]> I'd be happy with that approach
• [18:49] <@[Chair]Andrew> anything else we need to discuss?
• [18:50] <[PR]Nylanfs> Any ideas for fund raising for next year?
• [18:50] <jamesd[Code_SB]> Not from me
• [18:51] <@[Chair]Andrew> not off the top of my head
• [18:51] <[PR]Nylanfs> Hmm, I'll post to the FB and main list again
• [18:52] <@[Chair]Andrew> I think someone wanted to volunteer me out :P
• [18:52] <jamesd[Code_SB]> :) In demand!
• [18:52] <[PR]Nylanfs> hehe
• [18:53] <@[Chair]Andrew> Well my son is getting fussy, so unless we have anything else... I think it's time to call it a night
• [18:54] <[PR]Nylanfs> Nothing from me
• [18:54] <jamesd[Code_SB]> None here
• [18:54] <[Arch_SB]thpr> nothing here
• [18:54] <@[Chair]Andrew> ok, *bangs gavel* thanks for coming everyone.
• [18:55] <jamesd[Code_SB]> Thanks Andrew, Tom and Paul
• [18:56] <[Arch_SB]thpr> g'night all

END of Log and notes.