Another Topic

[Jay]

I contacted Wesley and Fireburn about an hour after your post, questioning the Roadmap. I explained we needed it before this Wednesday's deadline (which they should've known anyway if they were following the original topic) with enough time for you guys to check it out and comment on the (what would be) new proposal with the roadmap in place. I also helped them with part of the roadmap, but obviously I can't do it all because it wouldn't be fair on another developers. I then suggested that if the roadmap cannot be complete in time, that a new proposal to be forwarded for us to postpone news posts until we get this sorted. I was told that was the case, and it was rejected. May I ask why?

Obviously it's to late now for this week. For Fireburn's attention I would just like to mention the opening phrase of this whole debate (as I remember, I don't have the exact log):

Wesley, Fireburn, or whoever is in charge. Me Matthias and thiaZ don't want these constant news posts and updates [....]

That means we don't want posts every 2 weeks on 2.91 development. We want to concentrate on 3.0. We want to keep people interested in development, instead of boring them to death with the same shit every week. Can you please respect our opinions and at least forward more of an argument to convince us otherwise if you truly believe this is a bad idea? I have the feeling this is never ending.
Matthias and thiaZ, where are you?

Edit: Oh, and some people may get the feeling I'm acting two faced. I stick to what I said to the lead developers: I can respect your current situations with school work and such, which, at present, is a reason I'm personally not following certain advice. But if this gets to a situation where this is a never ending debate and our opinions end up getting fucked over (for another week running) unfortunately I'm going to loose my patience.

[Matthias]

Well, Fireburn said he'd finish the roadmap by the end of the week.

We should just finish discussing and get some clear guidelines on what the devs and lead devs can and can't do, kinda getting sick of all this.

[Peter]

I then suggested that if the roadmap cannot be complete in time, that a new proposal to be forwarded for us to postpone news posts until we get this sorted. I was told that was the case, and it was rejected. May I ask why?

I am not aware of such a proposal except for a small remark in another, mostly unrelated post.

Other items noted in your post are purely for the attention of the Lead Developers, and therefore I will not reply to them.

[Jay]

I am not aware of such a proposal except for a small remark in another, mostly unrelated post.

...Interesting

[Fireburn]

I asked if there was a possibility of postponing the update, because of the recent troubles, and because some people were clearly against it last week. In that post I've also said that this would be the last time, because the roadmap will be done this week. Maybe it wasn't a formal proposal, but I believe that I firmly asked about it. The reaction I got was that there must be a blogpost yesterday.
In a response to that I've asked every developer if they were okay with the update, because it seemed clear that we had to do anything, as was posted. Matthias and thiaZ said it was fine, so I waited just for you Jay, and I also said there that because of the current agreement that was still going and all that we didn't really have a choice. You then agreed with that. So in response to that I've asked Sander to run an update.
Listen, I'm not happy with the situation as well, but I firmly believe that I've acted responsibly and as I should yesterday. I would also rather just focus on developing stuff.. We should just finish our roadmap and make a proposal based on that, and forward that to the coremanagement. Once we have done that and a new agreement gets accepted, we can leave everything behind and start clean.

About 2.91 updates, I still think we should keep doing some updates, mainly to fix incoming bugs. If you want to lower the frequency of that, be my guest, and we'll add it into the proposal, but I do believe that if we want to keep our players we should fix bugs like the one reported some times today that guests can enter VIP vehicles. I'm the only one putting some time in 2.91, and all fixes of 2.91 will also be put into 3.0, so I don't believe it takes a lot of time away. But as said again, be my guest, you and Matthias and thiaZ are the one mainly developing the version, so yes, you should have a say in that, which is why you can make the proposal. Wesley and I might suggest some changes, but I'm yours as it is on 3.0 updates. I want this neverending debate to end as much as you do, but my true opinion is that we should atleast do some small updating on 2.91, but a frequency change? Fine. I just want to fix the most annoying bugs as they show up, because we all agree we still want some players on 3.0, and that we don't want everyone annoyed to death.

Also posted on behalf of Wesley

[Jay]

I don't understand the core management's recent involvement in all this. Prior to the new website release, shortly after 2.91, it was the (lead) developers who were calling the shots on news posts and we were free to do releases whenever we felt they were ready. Why has this changed?
I'm sure I'm not the one only one who preffered this.

Maybe it wasn't a formal proposal, but I believe that I firmly asked about it.

... Even more interesting

It's clear it was proposed to the core management about postponing Wednesday's post, however it seems to me that the core management are looking for every little excuse to prevent these news posts from being withdrawn.

Quantity is not Quality. I've been approached many times from players asking questions about development that were clearly marked down in a website news post weeks beforehand. Surely this is enough proof to conclude that people are loosing interest in these posts?

I still don't understand why these proposals are even necessary and why it is you guys rejected the original one from us. Obviously we need a roadmap to track progress, your other points are valid too, but how does this affect the core management?
Why does the core management need clear time frames of when to expect these news posts?
Why have the core management suddenly started to care about development?

As I've expressed to other people, in any other community this process would've happened as such:

<Dev> eyo Management, can we fuck the news posts?
<Management> k

In response to Fireburn:

About 2.91 updates, I still think we should keep doing some updates, mainly to fix incoming bugs. If you want to lower the frequency of that, be my guest, and we'll add it into the proposal, but I do believe that if we want to keep our players we should fix bugs like the one reported some times today that guests can enter VIP vehicles. I'm the only one putting some time in 2.91, and all fixes of 2.91 will also be put into 3.0, so I don't believe it takes a lot of time away.

Fair enough, I agree to that. There aren't (m)any bugs present at the moment though, so effectively that should significantly reduce the frequency anyway.

[tomozj]

Why not have a 2.91 bug fix log somewhere? When an update goes live, you add what you've fixed to the top of the list.

No need for spam news but also players can stay informed on what's fixed in the latest releases.

Oh, and imo (not that it matters), that as long as 2.91 is live then you should be responsible for maintaining it. It's not too much effort and these fixes should go into 3.0 also anyway.

[Peter]

It's quite simple to explain how the decision-making process between the Development Management and the Core Management has been divided. The Development Management fully decides what's going to happen, how it's going to happen and what resources might be required to do so. The sole arrangement with the Core Management is that there have to be news-updates in order to keep the website up-to-date at all times. This arrangement is fully debatable, however, proposed changes have to be reasonable and clear. That means that proposals have to be definable (if you say "every 20%", then define what twenty percent is and aproximately how long every 20% takes), clear (no small sentences in larger, partitially unrelated posts) and backed up.

Right now, the arrangement between the Development Management has been described using the following sentences:

The Development Management will:

1. publish one article per week which contains, in case of even weeks: an introductionary text, two screenshots and a minor changelog; in case of odd weeks: a general update about LVP 3.0 progress.
   
2. provide weekly updates about events and happenings in and around the Development Team to the rest of the Management using a therefore created topic.
   
3. listen and cooperate with other Managements, specifically the Crew Management, with a serious intent to consider any incoming requests.
   

Regardless what you think about it, this has sped up decision making for the Development Management by decreasing the amount of people involved from thirteen to two. For the Crew Management is has been decreased from thirteen to three. The Core Management makes sure that the different Management devisions cooperate smoothly and internal problems get solved, and does this in a clean and effective way.

It is not their intent to prevent news posts from being withdrawn at all. If that's what the Development Management feels should be done they should propose it in a way that conforms to the three requirements listed in my first paragraph. Until right now that has not been done, and therefore all responsibilities are still in place as they were agreed upon by both parties in December 2009.

As I said before, your proposal got rejected because it was too vague and was not limited. Other Managements had no idea about upcoming features, exact planning or even remotely what was to be expected in the next few months, which means posting a message "every 20%" could be anything from a message per week to a message every two months. On top of that, as Tom states, the currently running GameMode has to be maintained as long as it's live. It is important that bugs get fixed and players do not get the idea LVP has stalled.

Why does the core management need clear time frames of when to expect these news posts?
Because it is in the favor of LVP as a whole to have an up-to-date website. Having news posts are a key factor in this, which is the primary part of the arrangement currently in place between the Core- and Development Management.

Why have the core management suddenly started to care about development?
The Core Management cares about the agreement that was made with the Development Management back in December 2009, which involves the weekly news posts. The Core Management does not interfere directly with any development-related subjects.

[Jay]

I give up. This debate is not going to end. It looks like I'm the only one who cares anyway.

The roadmap is done (95% of which by me). Dated Milestones are in place as requested. The only thing left to do is write out the tickets, but I'm not doing everything.

A Lead developer should hopefully forward a proposal today.