[crossfire] Organizing efforts, was Re: Project: New Intro

[Mark Wedel]

  The original mail in question had what I really two different topics - one for 
the idea of redoing what players see when they connect, and a second about group 
efforts to get things done in a timely fashion.  This mail more focuses on how 
to do group efforts - ideally to come up with some scheme that can be used as a 
model, because as Ryo pointed out, there are lots of big projects on the list 
beyond just a new starting village.

  Some projects/changes may have dependency issues (rebalancing spells should 
likely be done after redoing classes/races as an example). Those need to be 
identified and ordering sorted out.

  For other projects, there are some that are really too big for one person to 
complete in a reasonable time period.  It really isn't enough that developers 
agree not to step on the toes of another, as that doesn't really help it gone 
done.  Instead, as Alex says, a concerted effort of at least several developers 
is needed.  But for any volunteer project, it is difficult to force people to do 
anything.

  My thought here is that each month (or maybe more/less frequently, based on 
how long it takes to do the different things), the developers should decide what 
is the most important thing to change/add/fix.  My rationale here is that if the 
developers agree that some issue is most important, they are much more likely to 
help out.  If the general developer response is 'that isn't very important', 
then you could pretty much figure they probably aren't going to put much effort 
in.  Note it may be reasonable to do less frequent votes, on the basis that 
after the top priority is done, whatever was #2 probably makes sense to be the 
next top priority, etc.  But new projects may pop up, or the completion of one 
may spawn a new one (before such and such feature was added, no one thought of 
something or it wasn't feasible).

  In this particular case, I agree that a new intro should be something at the 
top of the list.  But going forward, I think we need some way to decide what is 
done.

  In the context above, developer is anyone that is willing to help out to get 
the project done - doesn't mean coder, could be map maker, artist, person 
writing documentation.  but someone that just plays the game probably shouldn't 
be included, as that isn't going to help get the project done - my idea here is 
that you want the project decided on by those actually going to do the work. 
One the project is decided on, all are welcome to pitch in ideas, etc.

  So after the project is decided, there needs to be a project leader. 
Depending on the project, what that means may vary.  But I would say that the 
leader should come up with a plan detailed enough that it can be divided into 
work by several people.  An example would be maps - having broad outlines of 
what should be done is a good starting point, but having a 1 or 2 line 
description of what is needed on the maps then provides folks enough detail to 
work on it.  For coordination, putting this chart on the wiki, and people 
signing up for parts of it is probably a good way to go.

  I tend to think that it is best of the project lead starts by sending out a 
fairly detailed document - the reason I say this is that a fair number of 
developers have been around a long time, and can probably come up with a fairly 
complete starting plan without a lot of input.  They should still send that out 
and get input, but having a good starting point may trim a week or two off the 
discussion, and also provide a clearer picture to everyone what the idea is. 
Some of the basis here is also that some points have already been extensively 
discussed in the past - new points are welcome, but we don't necessarily need to 
fully discuss all the issues again.

  Once the plan is more or less agreed to (hard to get 100% agreement), people 
start working.  In fact, work may start before this, as there may be some points 
which everyone is in agreement on, and it may be more adding new points/details 
to the plan.

  The role of the project lead/coordinator is to take the pieces and make sure 
they all work.  In the case of the map example, look over the maps, make sure 
they meet various standards, basic idea behind the map, and link up the exits, 
etc (possible that some maps completed before the ones they link to).

  All projects should be worked on until fully done.  If a new NPC speech method 
is done that requires modifying the NPCs, it isn't sufficient to put that new 
support in and modify the NPCs in scorn and say 'it is ready' - that project 
isn't done until all the NPC's on all the maps are updated.  Otherwise, past 
experience shows that those other NPCs probably won't get updated.

  I don't mean to have draconian policies in place in the above - in fact, just 
the opposite.  What I really want is something in place so that projects can be 
decided fast, what needs to be done decided fast, and that broken down into 
pieces so that it can be completed rapidly.  That's not to mean without thought, 
but lots of things has been extensively discussed, and all the discussions in 
the world don't really make it so that the project gets done any faster.