=- ChronosWS wrote on Fri  6.Apr'07 at 17:54:05 -0700 -=

>   The reason I suggest forums is that you can contain both canon
> and discussion within a single organizational unit.

Ok, this is split up here and now in ML == discussion and wiki == canon
(or rather the summarized results).

> Persons who are interested in only a subset of those
> organizational units need not plow through/organize/search the
> myriad of discussions which occur here.

If well done, they should find it on the wiki.

> Further, by containing canon with the discussion people can know
> what has actually been decided, versus what the last thing said
> in a discussion was, which may not be an actual decision (and
> from what I have heard here about people making suggestions but
> not running with them, this is often the case.)

This could be noted on the wiki (either with comments or separate

> I'm not a big fan of over-organization, but there are
> common-sense, low cost steps which can be taken to facilitate a
> cohesive development strategy.

I think we have this with the ML + wiki.

> The wiki is a joke, honestly, as it's really just a collection
> of bullet points with no one having bothered to distill or
> synthesize the ideas into a plan of any sort.

No tool will do what the humans are supposed to.
Once you have _somebody_ who'll do the work, it doesn't matter
which tool to use. Forum or wiki, technically they don't make a
great difference in skill requirement by the writer.

> If the group is really too lazy to bother to log into a forum {...}

I truly and seriously prefer ML+wiki over web-Forum.
I've worked with all 3 of them, and that's the result. ;)

A forum is primarily the same as a ML. Separate discussion of a
forum is realized by separate threads, you just have to keep them
apart with your local copies or when scanning the archives.
(a threading capable MUA helps a lot, see mutt ;)

Storing results in forums means to start another topic/ thread/
just for that, which for us means to put it into the wiki.
Even with a forum people must be willing to spend the overhead to
add something. It's not less than using the wiki + ML.

> {do ...} what it takes to really reinvigorate the game to the
> level which you have professed to desire.

Some things take time and slowly get moving.
Netrek revival is going on for ... 10y+ now. ;)

> It's a serious task which is proposed, and even though we are
> part-time developers on it does not mean we should be lazy about
> doing what is needed to pursue that goal in earnest.

Exclusive dedication is something not all of us can afford.
I'll see what I can do about working with the wiki.

> My goal here is to provide a means for organization and a
> mechanism by which the leader(s) of it can communicate the actual
> plan and have that plan be readily available to all developers who
> will be referring to it during their development process.

a) the means are already there.
b) we don't have those leaders (officially).

=> that's why we're stuck:
- not because we don't have the tools. ;)
- but because the people don't use them or have no directions.

> Having a single point of access for discussion and decisions
> means there is no need to know about {...}

Unfortunately this single access-point is not liked more than the
current (at least I prefer ML+wiki over forum, better suited for
the different aspects).

> {...} and if people are doing their jobs, {...}

That's the main problem with whatever tool/ technology we use.
(BTW, you still haven't adjusted the subject! See, it's easy
to miss minor overhead for the greater good :-/)

> How far are you willing to go to bring this game to that huge
> pool of potential players?

We need a direction before we can get moving, and that's what
we're lacking currently (see other threads).

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.