Development Groups formation

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 06 Mar 2005 20:25

This used to be in another topic.

I read the minutes and I agree on my assigned status and also on the other decisions being made. If Hellfire agrees to we can start forming the 3 groups.

In the other topic, Hellfire agreed.

Edited by Hellfire @ 2005-03-07 22:10 UTC

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 07 Mar 2005 10:30

Hehe, good

. Let me propose something first before people assign themselves to a group. Would it be any problem to be a member of multiple groups? I don't think it should matter as long as the workload assigned to you gets done in time.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 07 Mar 2005 11:04

I think you need to make it clear what each group does. It seemed a bit fuzzy in the meeting.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 07 Mar 2005 12:17

Yes, I agree on that but a bit fuzzy idea doesn't prohibit you from saying if you like the possibility to be a member of more than 1 group.

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 07 Mar 2005 13:44

I have no problems with people joining more than one group. We're all old and wise enough (well, at least most of us) to make a good decision.

Zuu · Post by **Zuu** » 07 Mar 2005 15:00

Perhaps we shall create a seperate thread for that, but in which forum?

I think the Generan TE Discussion forum will be OK, as I see no need for haveing it in the Development forum.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 07 Mar 2005 16:20

That's fine with me. Be my guest

.

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 07 Mar 2005 16:30

If you'd like, ChrisCF or I could split the "group" messages to another topic for your convenience.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 07 Mar 2005 16:48

Can I vote for you to do it

. Perhaps call it 'Development Groups formation'

Zuu · Post by **Zuu** » 07 Mar 2005 18:07

I agree too.

PJayTycy · Post by **PJayTycy** » 07 Mar 2005 18:10

The first group would be empty right now yes?

We are now discussing the FRD, and will then write the DD and create a website/reorganize the wiki. That are all items out of the 2nd category. So, for now, I'd join the 2nd category, as that's where everything happens at the moment. After that, I would transfer to the code section.

Hellfire · Post by **Hellfire** » 07 Mar 2005 22:11

Hyronymus wrote:Can I vote for you to do it . Perhaps call it 'Development Groups formation'

Consider it done.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 07 Mar 2005 23:14

OK, let's start with finding 3 fitting descriptions for the Development Groups.

Code Group (CG): This group is responsible for the creation of all code. This means they code core features as well as optional features but their primary focus is creating the core code. The two other groups can request features to be coded and the CG can request the two other groups to think about necessary steps/actions.

Technical Group (TG): This group is responsible for creating a coding standard, assuring usabiltity throughout the development and keeping and finding cross-platform solutions. They can also ask the other groups to think about necessary steps/actions.

Management Group (MG): This group is responsible for creating and maintaining documents, sites and the general planning. The two other groups make their own planning but they should always fit within the general planning. The MG can ask the other groups to adjust or create their planning but can also help out when needed.

Please note that these are my sugestions! I haven't added the graphical branche yet but I think it belongs in the Technical Group. Does anyone think the TG and MG conflict eachother btw, I'm not very convinced that they don't.

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 08 Mar 2005 00:00

Still the graphics don't really fit in anywhere.

ChrisCF · Post by **ChrisCF** » 08 Mar 2005 00:25

Hyronymus wrote:OK, let's start with finding 3 fitting descriptions for the Development Groups.

My take on this - also purely suggestive:

Code: Deals specifically with the code, and the technical aspects around it. Sub-groups may look at specifics such as optimisation, portability, etc. This area is important because without it the game won't be realised.

Technical: Deals with aspects which aren't directly related to the code, but may require some specialist technical knowledge. This area covers things like standards, modelling, translation, website, etc. This area is important because it keeps things moving, and makes sure everyone is working from the same page, making everyone's jobs easier.

Non-technical (Hyronymus' Management group): Deals with aspects outside of the code which don't necessarily require technical knowledge. This will include things such as user documentation, maintaining the content of the wiki. This area is important because as well as providing the 'glue' which holds the whole thing together, it deals with all the small things that allow the big things to happen - housekeeping is important, but then this area is a lot more than just that.

It's worth remembering that they are intended to be a top-level classification of information, work, and responsibility, more than ways of grouping people.

As an idea, I'm working on a basic concept for what a work area home page might look like on the wiki, though it certainly won't be final. I'm deliberately avoiding the use of specific templates that I might only have to delete later.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » 08 Mar 2005 10:00

The code group is fine. The other 2 groups just seem a bit vague. Such as Non-technical updating the Wiki content. In some cases, the coder will be best to update something that he did.

How about (put nice and simply)
A: Coders
B: Other things that are directly IN the game, but not code. Models, music, UI.
C: Everything else. Not in the game, but FOR the game. Website, Wiki, Forums, Pie Saleman, PR, EmpireBot.

Hyronymus · Post by **Hyronymus** » 08 Mar 2005 11:39

That sound rather good Steve (mornin' btw). What do the others think of Steve's proposal?

Mek · Post by **Mek** » 08 Mar 2005 11:41

Hyronymus wrote:That sound rather good Steve (mornin' btw). What do the others think of Steve's proposal?

I think it sounds good as well, but i'd rephrase the second one a little to "Other things that are directly IN the game, but no code.", because else the difference between the second and third isn't really obvious

Arathorn · Post by **Arathorn** » 08 Mar 2005 13:06

Agreed with Mek's proposal.

SHADOW-XIII · Post by **SHADOW-XIII** » 08 Mar 2005 13:53

I agree

Transport Tycoon Forums

Development Groups formation

Development Groups formation

Who is online