[crossfire] Leaderships(s?) (was Re: Platform statement)

[Mark Wedel]

Hmm - I seemed to have not received some of the messages in the thread, but my 
two cents (take it how you will)

Most all of the leadership roles have a fair amount of overlap and cooperation 
needed, and all that gets tricky.

If we define this as the various roles:
content leader (maps, archetypes, images)
server code (new features, bug fixes, improved performance)
client (new features, etc) - note probably have 1 leader/client
editor (new features, etc) - we really only have 1 editor, but if we had more,
    probably would have 1 leader per editor
gameplay leader (how fast is combat, how does item X work, etc)

(as a note, just because there are those different roles does not require that 
each one be a unique person - one person may have different roles)

Pretty much all of those need to work together at some level - if the content 
leader decides there are some changes to the archetypes, then cooperation of the 
server person and the editor is likely needed.

And that is true for lots of other things - we could say 'the new one to create 
characters is to offload a lot of work to the client' - server folks are willing 
to make changes to do that.  But unless the client folks are also willing to do 
so, that perhaps doesn't go anyplace.

Now one hopes that things like that don't happen.  But I can certainly see many 
cases where one leader wants something done, but it falls into another area and 
that other leader doesn't see it as a priority to them (they're working on 
something else or maybe just don't see much value, etc).

Gameplay is a vague definition in this form - there isn't any actual area (like 
maps, server, client) that such a person is responsible for.  I'd also note that 
many different areas could have huge affects on gameplay without need of changes 
in other areas (the melee combat rebalance I did was almost all content 
(archetypes), and a minor amount of code).

  Instead of that gameplay leader role, I'd suggest that instead an overall 
leader role should be in place instead.  This person is in charge of resolving 
disputes (final word) when they arise.  Such a role is definitely needed, 
because I think disputes will arise.

  Now hopefully, not many disputes will arise - most folks will agree on things 
happen.

  I'd also say that most gameplay decisions would fall to the content leader - 
simply on the basis that the content is going to have most of the effect on 
gameplay - simply by adjusting attributes of archetypes has big impacts on gameplay.

  One advantage I see with those leadership roles is each person has an area of 
the SVN tree that are in charge of - to me this makes sense.  You can't have 2 
folks in charge of the same area - that just doesn't work.  The person in charge 
of that area gets to make final decision on patches/changes to that area, with 
the exception of things that hit multiple areas.

  The person in charge of maps is clearly the best person to make the call on if 
a map is appropriate.  And since that person is also in charge of archetypes, 
they are the best person to decide on appropriate rewards.

  Patches/changes that hit multiple areas are the exception.  In the case that 
all parties involved to accept or reject the change (unanimous opinion), that is 
very simple.  The complicated case is when one person likes it, and another 
person doesn't.  If an agreement can't be reached, then it goes to the overall 
leaderd to make the call.

  I'm willing to continue my role as overall leader - in the model described 
above, such a role is more resolving dispute and not so much spending lots of 
time actually making changes (finding time/energy to read/respond to e-mail is 
often easier than time to make changes to code, archetypes, etc)