Meeting 2014 05 09

Board Members:

• Chair/Admin SB: Andrew
• Code SB: James
• Arch SB: Tom
• Web 2nd: Anestis

Raw Log:

• [17:06] <@Andrew[Chair]> *Bangs Gavel* Welcome to our Board of Directors Meeting - May 9th, 2014 at 5pm (California, USA time)
• [17:06] <@Andrew[Chair]> Agenda:
• [17:07] <@Andrew[Chair]> Team Status Reports
• [17:07] <@Andrew[Chair]> Data Report regarding 6.3 release (Andrew)
• [17:07] <@Andrew[Chair]> Outstanding Items
• [17:07] <@Andrew[Chair]> Open Forum
• [17:08] <@Andrew[Chair]> I'll start us off.
• [17:08] <@Andrew[Chair]> Content Report: Docs - No updates since last meeting
• [17:08] <@Andrew[Chair]> OS - No updates since last meeting
• [17:09] <@Andrew[Chair]> Data - Pathfinder Overhaul is nearing completion. (All Core and Player Companion books have been converted)
• [17:09] <@Andrew[Chair]> RSRD Core Set - Completed except for Epic subset
• [17:10] <@Andrew[Chair]> I've also taken the time to go through outstanding data trackers, and made Code or Newtag trackers for code support. Not finished, but it's a good start
• [17:10] <@Andrew[Chair]> Data Bugs and Features (I don't have a correct count) but I've dealt with 20+ issues in the last week and a half.
• [17:11] <@Andrew[Chair]> I have four open trackers I'm actively investigating as we speak.
• [17:11] <@Andrew[Chair]> a potential 5th was reported on the main yahoo group regarding the PROHIBITSPELL
• [17:12] <@Andrew[Chair]> Questions for Content before I switch to admin?
• [17:12] <James[Code_SB]> None here
• [17:12] <@Andrew[Chair]> Pressing onward then - Admin:
• [17:13] <@Andrew[Chair]> Release: We are about ready for the next release (Pending final Data bug fixes) as long as Code is ready.
• [17:13] <@Andrew[Chair]> Trackers: Working nicely, nothing to report here.
• [17:14] <@Andrew[Chair]> Web: I've been getting hit with a lot of drive by spam through our web contact form. I've asked Jami and Anestis to investigate a better anti-spam solution. The Help@pcgen.org is picking up a lot of steam. I'm happy to say no spam is coming from that direction. Anestis, anything to add or report on?
• [17:15] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Haven't heard from Jami about anti-spam measures. Might have to ping her again.
• [17:16] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Apart format hat, website is running fine.
• [17:16] <@Andrew[Chair]> Good to hear.
• [17:16] <@Andrew[Chair]> Questions for Admin?
• [17:16] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> I did not ice that when I went to download the latest PCGen version from SourceForge, the link on the main SF page for "Go to the PCGen website" goes to the SF website and not our website.
• [17:17] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Can we get that changed and start phasing out the SF website
• [17:17] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> ?
• [17:18] <@Andrew[Chair]> Yeah, we can certainly look at doing that.
• [17:18] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Just need to make sure that everything relevant form the SF website we have covered in ours is all
• [17:19] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Could use a few extra eyes on it and let the web team know if you find something we should be adding.
• [17:19] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> We're always happy to take suggestions to make impovements.
• [17:19] <@Andrew[Chair]> Let's hash out the desired changes on the web team group.
• [17:19] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> On the Mail/Forum integration, not much is happening there. I was investigating a possible solution but it has stalled at the moment.
• [17:20] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Things have bee in flux with me, and in three weeks I'll be moving into a new job
• [17:20] <@Andrew[Chair]> Congrats on the new Job. :)
• [17:20] *** Tom[Arch_SB] has joined #pcgen
• [17:21] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Thanks. Same company, different team (Server/Wintel)
• [17:21] <@Andrew[Chair]> Hi Tom
• [17:21] <cpmeister> Hi Tom
• [17:21] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Hi
• [17:21] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> That's all from me.
• [17:21] <[Web_2nd]Anestis> Any questions?
• [17:21] <@Andrew[Chair]> Thanks Anestis
• [17:22] <@Andrew[Chair]> We'll discuss the changes over on the web group
• [17:23] <@Andrew[Chair]> Since PR isn't here I'll handle that report. Paul sent a Request to Kobold Press. It's a tricky one since Open Design became Kobold Press. Since we don't know all the details we're treating it as a new publisher.
• [17:23] <@Andrew[Chair]> That's all for PR I'm aware of.
• [17:24] <@Andrew[Chair]> James, you ready to go next?
• [17:25] <James[Code_SB]> Sure
• [17:25] <James[Code_SB]> Over the last fortnight there hasn't been any code activity
• [17:25] <James[Code_SB]> We had 5 bugs raised and a few extra new tag requests
• [17:26] <@Andrew[Chair]> :P
• [17:27] <James[Code_SB]> There has been a lot of discussion on proposals, which of course takes time out of the active members. I think that balance is a bit worrying, so would suggest that that we remember that discussing proposals has a cost even if we accept that they will be down in the priority queue.
• [17:28] <James[Code_SB]> However if there is someone already lined up to do the work (e.g. the BASEHD proposal) that is quite productive
• [17:29] <James[Code_SB]> any questions?
• [17:29] <Tom[Arch_SB]> not from me
• [17:29] <cpmeister> none here
• [17:29] <@Andrew[Chair]> None here. Tom, anything to report for Arch?
• [17:31] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Not particularly - no real news since last meeting
• [17:33] <@Andrew[Chair]> Okay, then onto the next item
• [17:35] <@Andrew[Chair]> Release, as I stated earlier, we're near completion of the major items. I think a release in the next week should be good.
• [17:36] <@Andrew[Chair]> As long as you're good with this James, we can the release and shoot for next weekend?
• [17:36] <James[Code_SB]> I won;t be available sorry
• [17:36] <@Andrew[Chair]> You okay with me doing the release then? (It's been awhile and it would be good to have another go)
• [17:37] <James[Code_SB]> yep that's fine
• [17:37] <@Andrew[Chair]> Okay, I'll target Saturday then.
• [17:37] <James[Code_SB]> I'd test early as there have been extensive code and data changes
• [17:37] <Tom[Arch_SB]> are you saying this saturday or next?
• [17:38] <@Andrew[Chair]> Doing the full build for me does the full suite of tests
• [17:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I found an issue with skill situations that I'd like to fix, but will not make it in by tomorrow
• [17:38] <@Andrew[Chair]> May 17th Tom
• [17:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> k ty
• [17:38] <@Andrew[Chair]> James, numbering is 6.03.00 or 01?
• [17:38] <Tom[Arch_SB]> actually, when we get back to a point between agenda items, I'd like to bring up an Arch topic
• [17:39] <James[Code_SB]> 6.03.00 would be the release number
• [17:39] <@Andrew[Chair]> okay, thanks.
• [17:39] <@Andrew[Chair]> Tom, we're now at outstanding business / open forum. Bring up your topic. :)
• [17:41] <Tom[Arch_SB]> ok, so I want to seed a discussion - no intent to solve it now, but it has a very wide ranging impact, so want to bring up here rather than just on _exp
• [17:41] <Tom[Arch_SB]> The issue is that visibility is not coherently implemented across many functions
• [17:42] <Tom[Arch_SB]> The count() function in JEP for example, assumes that it is exporting, not that it is displaying for the UI
• [17:42] *** novas0x2a|laptop has quit IRC: Quit: Leaving.
• [17:42] <Tom[Arch_SB]> I'm not entirely sure that's a "safe" assumption
• [17:43] <Tom[Arch_SB]> It at least is not documented
• [17:43] <Tom[Arch_SB]> It also limits where we can use count() (could never use a JEP function containing count in designing a part of the UI)
• [17:43] <Tom[Arch_SB]> so basically, count() ends up being consistent with export tokens exclusively
• [17:44] <Tom[Arch_SB]> (This is actually the problem with skillsit I referenced earlier - count for SKILLSIT is NOT acting as "export only")
• [17:44] <Tom[Arch_SB]> So anyway, the overarching questions are something like this:
• [17:45] <Tom[Arch_SB]> Do we ever intend any functions (such as count) to have usage outside of export
• [17:45] <Tom[Arch_SB]> This is a code question in UI design
• [17:45] <Tom[Arch_SB]> it is also a data question (because if you do things in the data that use that function, VISIBLE:DISPLAY items would NEVER be counted)
• [17:45] <Tom[Arch_SB]> If we do need it, then what impact does that have on future design choices or other impacts to the function
• [17:46] <Tom[Arch_SB]> and related to that... if we ever get to a new equation parser, do we need to prohibit its use in data because it is currently export-centered
• [17:47] <Tom[Arch_SB]> so that's the "problem statement" as I know it so far. Food for thought and hammering out in a future code/data meeting of some form
• [17:48] <Tom[Arch_SB]> back to you Andrew unless someone has questions on that topic
• [17:51] <Tom[Arch_SB]> uhh, leaving me (the guy who wasn't at the meeting early enough to see the agenda) with the talking stick probably isn't the best plan :D
• [17:53] <James[Code_SB]> I don't have anything further to raise
• [17:55] <cpmeister> I have something. What is the current standing on migration to Github? Is that still in the works?
• [17:57] <James[Code_SB]> Well, we have an active github presence, and Henk does a great job of applying pull requests when they come in and are approved
• [17:57] <James[Code_SB]> However at this stage we haven't moved any closer to a full switch
• [17:57] <James[Code_SB]> I did note that for those who prefer svn, github supports svn access to their git repos too
• [17:59] <@Andrew[Chair]> <back> sorry had a small incident with the kids
• [18:00] <cpmeister> I'll have to check that my credentials for sourceforge still work but svn should work fine for me.
• [18:01] <James[Code_SB]> cool
• [18:02] <@Andrew[Chair]> Unless anyone has anything else, I think it's time to wrap this meeting up.
• [18:03] <cpmeister> none here
• [18:03] <@Andrew[Chair]> *Bangs Gavel* This meeting is officially finished. Thanks for coming everyone!