CSM Meeting Minutes 5.003 raw log

From sdeevelopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All this data is potentially out of date, and should be taken with a truckload of salt

CSM Meeting Minutes 5.003 raw log

[ 2010.06.12 17:00:37 ] Mynxee > .===========================MEETING 003 CALLED TO ORDER===========================.
[ 2010.06.12 17:00:41 ] Ankhesentapemkah > 2 hours of free time per day is gonna be spent on sleep and not eve hehe
[ 2010.06.12 17:00:49 ] Mynxee > roll call please
[ 2010.06.12 17:00:57 ] Mynxee > x up if present.
[ 2010.06.12 17:01:04 ] TeaDaze > x
[ 2010.06.12 17:01:08 ] Sokratesz > x
[ 2010.06.12 17:01:13 ] Dierdra Vaal > x
[ 2010.06.12 17:01:16 ] Mynxee > x
[ 2010.06.12 17:01:17 ] ALPHA12125 > x if needed
[ 2010.06.12 17:01:26 ] Trebor Daehdoow > x
[ 2010.06.12 17:01:34 ] Ankhesentapemkah > x\
[ 2010.06.12 17:02:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > /emote pokes vuk lik and krovin
[ 2010.06.12 17:02:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > we have a quorum tho - 7  people
[ 2010.06.12 17:02:48 ] Ankhesentapemkah > yo vik luk :P
[ 2010.06.12 17:02:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > *vik luk
[ 2010.06.12 17:02:51 ] Mynxee > yup and even if they return, alpha can still fill in for 9th seat anyways. so plan to participate, alpha.
[ 2010.06.12 17:02:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > :)
[ 2010.06.12 17:03:08 ] Mynxee > ok
[ 2010.06.12 17:03:31 ] Mynxee > reminders: 1) ! to talke and try to keep with that protocol. 2) stay on topic please
[ 2010.06.12 17:03:32 ] ALPHA12125 > kk
[ 2010.06.12 17:03:43 ] Korvin > x
[ 2010.06.12 17:04:11 ] Mynxee > we have 7 issues
[ 2010.06.12 17:04:23 ] Mynxee > 3 are simple ones, 4 have more scope
[ 2010.06.12 17:04:51 ] Mynxee > before we get started on them, does anyone have anyhting else they think should be added to the agenda under Other Business?
[ 2010.06.12 17:06:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > nope
[ 2010.06.12 17:06:36 ] Mynxee > I will assume not then. Let's get onto the issues. Ankh do yo have a preference for teh sequence of yours? i would like to intersperse the others between yours.
[ 2010.06.12 17:06:41 ] TeaDaze > Just to ensure people post their wiki links properly
[ 2010.06.12 17:06:57 ] Ankhesentapemkah > no preference
[ 2010.06.12 17:07:34 ] Mynxee > OK. First issue to cover is (Ankh) Issue: Fix Factional Warfare
[ 2010.06.12 17:07:42 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Fix_Factional_Warfare_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.06.12 17:07:44 ] Mynxee > ankh you have the floor to present this issue.
[ 2010.06.12 17:08:24 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Yes, I raise this as a general issue, because the CSM previously raised at least 14 specific FW Issues as problems, and none of them have been fixed in the past two years.
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:08 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:09 ] Ankhesentapemkah > According to Dierdra, CCP wants to have a major pass of FW at some point and then doesn't want to touch it again, thus raising small issues seperately is not going to be the correct approach
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:17 ] Ankhesentapemkah > if I said that correctly?
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > well they say that for all issues
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > not FW
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > they prefer to do it once
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > rather than lots of times
[ 2010.06.12 17:09:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > its been feedback on past CSM isues where we requested short term fixes
[ 2010.06.12 17:10:21 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Yes. What I do want fixed on short notice though, are the obvious bugs and the open exploits however.
[ 2010.06.12 17:11:09 ] Ankhesentapemkah > but dierdra is right that the other issues should be dealt with in one go, if devtime allows.
[ 2010.06.12 17:11:53 ] Mynxee > You may have to identify priorities for all the categories of fixes you list in your post
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:00 ] Mynxee > not here, but to CCP
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:01 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:06 ] Mynxee > go DV
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > ok
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:32 ] Dierdra Vaal > I strongly agree with this issue. The state FW is in is frankly disgraceful for something that actually could be really cool.
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:37 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:43 ] Mynxee > go tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm not finished :P
[ 2010.06.12 17:12:54 ] Mynxee > oh sorry LOL
[ 2010.06.12 17:13:16 ] Mynxee > continue DV.
[ 2010.06.12 17:13:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > I'm glad we've assigned this discussion time on the summit and ank and I will most likely prepare a presentation or something to help guide that discussion
[ 2010.06.12 17:13:28 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:13:35 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:14:01 ] Mynxee > Q for DV: Is it your impression that the FW session would be used to raise the FW issue along with any succh presentation?
[ 2010.06.12 17:14:16 ] Mynxee > (end)
[ 2010.06.12 17:14:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > uhm well these are FW problems.. which we'll be talking about during the FW discussion. Thats what the presentation will most likely be about
[ 2010.06.12 17:14:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > does that answer your question? end
[ 2010.06.12 17:15:31 ] Mynxee > i ask in reference to petur's expressed concern about when CSM Issues will be raised. Will defer that to later in this meeting. (end)
[ 2010.06.12 17:15:33 ] Mynxee > go tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:15:36 ] TeaDaze > Many fix requests etc have already been passed by the previous CSMs, I don't see we need to raise yet another topic covering this when we can just use the FW discussion at the summit to progress things (or not).
[ 2010.06.12 17:16:07 ] TeaDaze > Raising the same thing 100times with slightly different wording isn't going to help. We have the session available so lets use it. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:16:20 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:16:22 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Dierdra and me might be preparing presentations on more issues than FW, I'd like to discuss this further under any other business at the end of the meeting so we can keep you guys up to date and informed properly. end
[ 2010.06.12 17:16:26 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:16:30 ] Ankhesentapemkah > one more sorry in response to tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:16:36 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:17:32 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I want this issue raised so I can present the current exploits and status of FW, and have the general presentation. Plus having an actual issue also shows to the many waiting players that we're doing something about this, so its the communication part
[ 2010.06.12 17:17:35 ] Ankhesentapemkah > as well. End.
[ 2010.06.12 17:17:53 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:17:58 ] Mynxee > tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:18:38 ] TeaDaze > We are just wasting discussion time in these meetings where we can cover other issues than ones already passed. You don't need to raise an issue just to put your name on it to discuss something already in the backlog with CCP. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:19:09 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:19:16 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:19:56 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I personally think that 1 hour is not enough time for both marketing this issue to CCP and stress the importance of things in the backlog and hold a discussion about the status and future of FW>
[ 2010.06.12 17:19:59 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:21:26 ] Ankhesentapemkah > oh and I also need to explain and possibly even reproduce all those expoits in there.
[ 2010.06.12 17:21:33 ] Mynxee > we could probably spend a full day on any number of scopey topics at the summit. but topics are many and time is limited. do you have a proposed suggestion or are you simply expressing an opinion? end.
[ 2010.06.12 17:22:09 ] Mynxee > how many exploits are you talking about ?
[ 2010.06.12 17:22:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:22:20 ] Ankhesentapemkah > about 10 of them?
[ 2010.06.12 17:22:32 ] Mynxee > go dv
[ 2010.06.12 17:22:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > just to say: the discussion times are not time for bughunting - showcasing bugs/exploits can be done outside discussion time. I also think we can vote on this. end
[ 2010.06.12 17:23:11 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:23:15 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:24:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I'd like to split this thing between things: THe presenation, CCP telling us how much devtime fixing each of the backlog and new things costs and us prioritizing them, and discussing the future of FW and anything that can be included in a future
[ 2010.06.12 17:24:28 ] Ankhesentapemkah > expansion should CCP dedicate an expansion slot to improving FW mechanics.
[ 2010.06.12 17:24:30 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:24:38 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:24:44 ] Mynxee > sok
[ 2010.06.12 17:25:22 ] Sokratesz > its pretty clear that something needs to happen here, there is a dozen proposals on the table that have been discussed and accepted by past CSM's. no need to spend awhole lot of of time painstakingly explaining that to CCP, they know very fucking well
[ 2010.06.12 17:25:34 ] Sokratesz > that FW is broken, and this will require fist+table to get proper attention.
[ 2010.06.12 17:25:36 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:25:46 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:25:50 ] Ankhesentapemkah > you'll have my fist and my axe, har har! :)
[ 2010.06.12 17:25:52 ] Mynxee > tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:26:40 ] TeaDaze > I agree with Sok. It has been raised, it is on the agenda, it doesn't need more than one session scheduled to try to discuss the overall issues of FW. I think we are wasting time discussing it now when it is already on the table. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:26:56 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:27:05 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:27:34 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I still dont think one hour is enough but I still need this issue raised so I can prepare the presentation with Dierdra in this context. If anything, drop the current roundtable slot and put this issue in its place.
[ 2010.06.12 17:27:35 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:27:43 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:27:52 ] Mynxee > i agree that ankh's proposal doesn't offer anything new. I don't see the need for a vote on this. I DO see the need for a FW session at the summit. THat is already a given.
[ 2010.06.12 17:28:01 ] Mynxee > (end)Go tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:28:22 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:29:46 ] Mynxee > tea?
[ 2010.06.12 17:29:49 ] TeaDaze > You don't need this issue raised when it has already been passed in multiple issues with CSM4 and earlier - It has already been passed! You can discuss it at the summit etc without yet another proposal with the similar details on it...
[ 2010.06.12 17:30:22 ] TeaDaze > And trying to get a second session isn't worth in IMO considering what CCP said at the last summit [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:30:40 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:30:41 ] Ankhesentapemkah > About half of the points in the issue are not raised as seperate issues yet but are important for FW, so it does offer a lot of new things at are important for the big-picture view of FW. SUch as the pirate factions in fw which have been requested on
[ 2010.06.12 17:30:45 ] Ankhesentapemkah > the forums but never raised.
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:05 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:14 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end I guess you can look them up.
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:23 ] Mynxee > vuk
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:29 ] Vuk Lau > just for the record I have guests but I am reading everything. I understand Eva concerns, but TD is right
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:33 ] Vuk Lau > ebd
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:35 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:47 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:31:57 ] Mynxee > last commetn, ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:32:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > what about the presentation though, cant have a presenation without issue, plus we cant communicate with the players without an issue. Drop the roundtable slot, keep the issue!
[ 2010.06.12 17:32:16 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:32:32 ] Mynxee > you can have presentation without issue because IT IS ALREADY SCHEDULED
[ 2010.06.12 17:32:42 ] Mynxee > and ISSUES ARE ALREADY PASSED
[ 2010.06.12 17:32:46 ] Ankhesentapemkah > well then pass the issue and integrate it in the roundtable slot
[ 2010.06.12 17:32:50 ] Mynxee > i propose you focus your presentation aroun that
[ 2010.06.12 17:32:53 ] Ankhesentapemkah > without an issue ID it cant be logged properly either
[ 2010.06.12 17:33:13 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:33:19 ] Mynxee > tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:33:39 ] TeaDaze > One issue ID to cover all the exisiting issue IDs on all the exisiting FW issues? This seems pointless [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:33:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:33:58 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 17:34:00 ] Ankhesentapemkah > oh yes and why are you passing dierdras issue and discuss unfinished expansions which is basically the same thing?
[ 2010.06.12 17:34:08 ] Sokratesz > flerp
[ 2010.06.12 17:34:40 ] Dierdra Vaal > I can see this debate going in circles already. Just vote on the issue. Its on the agenda so yes you dont need to pass it technically, but voting on this now means everyone can move on to the next issue with minimal drama. end
[ 2010.06.12 17:35:33 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:35:49 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:36:04 ] Mynxee > after ankh we will vote, then. easiest way to move on.
[ 2010.06.12 17:36:09 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Dierdra has done the same thing with his unfinished expansion and his issue was passed even though I argued against that, and now I do this thing and everyone is against me it seems. I find this odd and would say this is anti-ankh crap again.
[ 2010.06.12 17:36:16 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:36:53 ] Sokratesz > in other news, sky is blue
[ 2010.06.12 17:37:38 ] TeaDaze > DV's issue specifically called them on the excellence issue. This FW is a rehash of previously passed issues
[ 2010.06.12 17:37:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > just vote guys
[ 2010.06.12 17:38:07 ] Mynxee > All in favor of Fix Factional Warfare raised by Ankh?
[ 2010.06.12 17:38:12 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Excellence is a rehash of the unfinished expansion issue which I raised.
[ 2010.06.12 17:38:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:38:19 ] Ankhesentapemkah > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:03 ] Mynxee > All opposed say Nay?
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:09 ] Trebor Daehdoow > nay
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:13 ] Sokratesz > nay
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:16 ] Mynxee > nay
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:27 ] ALPHA12125 > nay
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:35 ] TeaDaze > nay - already covered
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:47 ] Ankhesentapemkah > lol DOUBLE STANDARDS.
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:50 ] Dierdra Vaal > its still on the agenda so v0v :). next item!
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:55 ] Mynxee > Fix Factional Warfare: 2 ayes, 5 nays
[ 2010.06.12 17:39:57 ] Mynxee > moving on
[ 2010.06.12 17:40:03 ] Korvin > ill vote "y" just for lols
[ 2010.06.12 17:40:19 ] Mynxee > 3 ayes and 5 nays then
[ 2010.06.12 17:40:23 ] Mynxee > =============================================
[ 2010.06.12 17:40:36 ] Mynxee > Trebor's issue: Improve Overload User Interface
[ 2010.06.12 17:40:50 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Improve_Overload_User_Interface_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.06.12 17:40:54 ] Mynxee > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Improve_Overload_User_Interface_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:03 ] Mynxee > Trebor, you have the floor.
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:05 ] Trebor Daehdoow > See the wiki for all the gory details, but in brief, this is a minimalist and very specific proposal to improve the UI in this area.  It also ties in to another passed proposal, and it has been crafted to also help out color-blind players.
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:13 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Furthermore, it consists of a series of feature requests, each small, and each providing significant benefit.  I tried to make the proposal as clear as possible, but if anyone has questions, fire away! [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:25 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > its a good idea but its already been brought up if I recall correctly.
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:39 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:41:55 ] Mynxee > trebor
[ 2010.06.12 17:42:12 ] Trebor Daehdoow > I looked through the wiki and couldn't find anything.  There is a related "allow reactivation of accidentally deactivated modules" proposal [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:42:15 ] Dierdra Vaal > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Easy_overloading_toggle_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.06.12 17:42:22 ] Dierdra Vaal > ^
[ 2010.06.12 17:42:47 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:01 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:13 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:16 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Ok missed that. The current proposal is a superset of that proposal that incorporates extra visibility features.
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:19 ] Trebor Daehdoow > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:27 ] Mynxee > korvin
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:32 ] Korvin > Treb proposal seems more reasonable
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:53 ] Korvin > since we have shift + F keys for toggle
[ 2010.06.12 17:43:57 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:44:14 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:44:20 ] Mynxee > td
[ 2010.06.12 17:44:43 ] TeaDaze > Can we vote for this as an update to the previous proposal and see where it is in the backlog? [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:45:03 ] Mynxee > treb? would that suit?
[ 2010.06.12 17:45:35 ] Trebor Daehdoow > i have no problem with that, since mine is a superset that incorporates DV's orginal proposal AFAICT [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:45:56 ] Mynxee > We can vote then. Cast your vote aye or nay for Treb's issue.
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:08 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:08 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:12 ] ALPHA12125 > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:15 ] Ankhesentapemkah > nay
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:15 ] Sokratesz > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:16 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:17 ] Mynxee > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:46:24 ] Dierdra Vaal > nay
[ 2010.06.12 17:47:03 ] Mynxee > vote closed. moving on.
[ 2010.06.12 17:47:05 ] TeaDaze > Passed 6 for 2 against
[ 2010.06.12 17:47:46 ] Mynxee > =========================================================Ankh: Dynamic MIssions
[ 2010.06.12 17:47:47 ] Mynxee > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Dynamic_Missions_Part_2_(CSM)
[ 2010.06.12 17:47:55 ] Mynxee > ankh you have the floor
[ 2010.06.12 17:48:50 ] Ankhesentapemkah > Yes we all know that current missions are static boring garbage, and last time I raised this issue, CCP said "well we're going to announce something to deal with this at fanfest!!1111!", which turned out to be the not-so-epic-mission-arcs which is more
[ 2010.06.12 17:48:56 ] Ankhesentapemkah > of the same old static boring garbage.
[ 2010.06.12 17:49:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I've got some proposals to generate missions dynamically which should allow CCP to do it relatively easily or much more complex, depending on how much devtime they wish to allocate things.
[ 2010.06.12 17:49:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:51:17 ] Ankhesentapemkah > THere are also some ways to tie in other playstyles including PVP into this system to allow these missions to be competetive, in case anyone is interested in that part of the proposal.
[ 2010.06.12 17:51:39 ] Ankhesentapemkah > it needs further discussion with devs though to see the technical and game design limitiations of this.
[ 2010.06.12 17:51:40 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:51:44 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 17:51:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > while I think we should be careful on telling CCP how to practically do things (we dont know how eve is coded and what is and isnt easy), I do think this is a good proposal and it affects a lot of players - it should get our support. end
[ 2010.06.12 17:51:56 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:52:01 ] Mynxee > sok
[ 2010.06.12 17:52:23 ] Sokratesz > i always wondered why missions werent randomly generated..and have for 4 years now, fully supported. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:52:46 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:52:50 ] Mynxee > Im not a mission runner but I will say that I like a lot of the ideas in this proposal and if missions were more dynamic and unpredictable, hey, even I might enjoy doing them sometimes.
[ 2010.06.12 17:52:55 ] Mynxee > End
[ 2010.06.12 17:52:57 ] Mynxee > tea
[ 2010.06.12 17:53:03 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:53:10 ] T'Amber > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:53:21 ] ALPHA12125 > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:53:34 ] TeaDaze > I like the potential for "races" between players which is a kind of player vs player system. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:53:43 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 17:54:37 ] Trebor Daehdoow > There is a lot I like in this proposal, but one concern I have is that CCP has definitely put PVE on the agenda for iceland, so i am wondering if it might not be best to wait until after then and refine it using the info they provide. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:55:09 ] Mynxee > i wouldn't think so. we should be the ones pushing the agenda.
[ 2010.06.12 17:55:34 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:55:46 ] Mynxee > t'amber
[ 2010.06.12 17:55:51 ] T'Amber > Sorry cannot be here for the meeting as its Spahm Day in 6 hours and I must sleep. Apologies goodnight. [/end]
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:02 ] Mynxee > <3 T'amber
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:04 ] Mynxee > alpha
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:20 ] ALPHA12125 > does this also include using the sleeper AI in missions, or more just getting random missions? (end)
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:33 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:43 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > we can always refine the issue later anyway. end. (I think we're ready to vote)
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:47 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:56:58 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:57:28 ] Ankhesentapemkah > CCP said the sleeper AI is too CPU heavy to be used in missions, this might have changed though. We can discuss that as part of the 'less is more' section.
[ 2010.06.12 17:57:29 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:57:34 ] Mynxee > vuk
[ 2010.06.12 17:57:42 ] Vuk Lau > while i wholeheartedly support this issue we need to be aware, that such huge change in pve could cause enormous emoquit of empire pubbies
[ 2010.06.12 17:57:53 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 17:58:10 ] Vuk Lau > and yes we discussed on fanfest implementing sleepers AI into missions
[ 2010.06.12 17:58:11 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2010.06.12 17:58:16 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 17:58:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > agreed with vuk but we can put this in parallel of the current missions so players can pick, and CCP can evaluate the popularity of this new content. These missions do not even have to use agents in the traditional sense. End
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:13 ] Mynxee > Let's vote. State Aye or Nay for Dynamic Missions.
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:17 ] Mynxee > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:18 ] TeaDaze > y
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:20 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:20 ] Ankhesentapemkah > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:22 ] Sokratesz > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:22 ] ALPHA12125 > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:23 ] Vuk Lau > aye
[ 2010.06.12 17:59:25 ] Dierdra Vaal > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:00:21 ] TeaDaze > Korvin?
[ 2010.06.12 18:00:40 ] Mynxee > 30 seconds and the vote closes. I'm not going to wait for peolpe not paying attn.
[ 2010.06.12 18:00:49 ] Korvin > ill pass
[ 2010.06.12 18:00:55 ] Korvin > not really sure
[ 2010.06.12 18:00:58 ] Mynxee > vote closed.
[ 2010.06.12 18:01:49 ] Mynxee > ==========================================Next up: I am raising the Targeting from Broadcast History proposal
[ 2010.06.12 18:02:23 ] Mynxee > Summary: Allow broadcast targets to be target-locked using Ctrl+Click; ideally provide context menu options for orbiting and other options similar to Overview.
[ 2010.06.12 18:02:32 ] TeaDaze > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Targeting_from_Broadcast_History_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.06.12 18:02:32 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:02:43 ] Mynxee > This would benefit Logistics pilots and every one else.
[ 2010.06.12 18:02:49 ] Mynxee > ty teadaze
[ 2010.06.12 18:02:52 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 18:03:01 ] Trebor Daehdoow > yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:03:30 ] Mynxee > it is a simple change, but one that would make work in large fleets a lot easier.
[ 2010.06.12 18:03:39 ] Mynxee > questions, comments?
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:19 ] TeaDaze > Well, do want
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:23 ] TeaDaze > that is all
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:24 ] Mynxee > alright then let's vote.
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:28 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:29 ] Dierdra Vaal > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:30 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:30 ] ALPHA12125 > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:30 ] TeaDaze > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:30 ] Trebor Daehdoow > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:34 ] Mynxee > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:04:36 ] Ankhesentapemkah > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:05:02 ] TeaDaze > 8 for, waiting on Sok
[ 2010.06.12 18:05:16 ] Mynxee > sok is afk i think
[ 2010.06.12 18:05:16 ] Sokratesz > àye
[ 2010.06.12 18:05:21 ] Mynxee > oh good
[ 2010.06.12 18:05:24 ] TeaDaze > passed 9 for
[ 2010.06.12 18:05:33 ] Sokratesz > was getting a drink ;p
[ 2010.06.12 18:05:40 ] Mynxee > :) =============================================
[ 2010.06.12 18:06:19 ] Mynxee > next up: Ankh--Spreading Out Mission Runners
[ 2010.06.12 18:06:21 ] Mynxee > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Spreading_Out_Missionrunners
[ 2010.06.12 18:06:28 ] Mynxee > ankh you have the floor
[ 2010.06.12 18:07:31 ] Ankhesentapemkah > CCP stated that they have issues with mission runners clustering up in certain hubs instead of spreading out. We also see in the QEN that Caldari space is also heavily used compared to the other races space. Unfortunately, CCP is taking the wrong
[ 2010.06.12 18:08:01 ] Ankhesentapemkah > approach to alleviate this problem, by adding even more Caldari agents (caldari now got about 30 more highlevel combat agents than any of the other factions)
[ 2010.06.12 18:08:26 ] Ankhesentapemkah > which only resulted in non-caldari mission runners abandoning their agents and running missions for caldari.
[ 2010.06.12 18:09:45 ] Ankhesentapemkah > As proposal, I would like to add incentives to run missions for agents of different factions, including non-empire factions, and possibly alter the current mission hubs by either putting several low quality agents there or one high quality agent,
[ 2010.06.12 18:09:48 ] Ankhesentapemkah > not a mix of both.
[ 2010.06.12 18:10:17 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I also noticed that the issue had a section regarding the load balancing, and that CCP released a statement on this issue, so I'll scrap this issue from the list if you agree with that.
[ 2010.06.12 18:10:36 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end.
[ 2010.06.12 18:11:34 ] Mynxee > what effect do you think the previous issue of dynamic pve will have on this one?
[ 2010.06.12 18:12:18 ] Mynxee > in summary form :) end
[ 2010.06.12 18:12:26 ] Korvin > :D
[ 2010.06.12 18:12:30 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I do not know at what timestage cCP can implement dynamic missions, but this issue is something that can be resolved in less than a week (even in one day if they use the list of agents I proposed a year ago)
[ 2010.06.12 18:12:52 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:12:57 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 18:13:06 ] Ankhesentapemkah > in the long term dynamic missions could resolve this issue but we do not know how long this will take.
[ 2010.06.12 18:13:08 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 18:13:21 ] Ankhesentapemkah > oh one more thing !
[ 2010.06.12 18:13:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would also add that the dynamic missions have to do with the content of the missions, whereas this issue concerns the dispersion of missions throughout eve space. end
[ 2010.06.12 18:13:35 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 18:14:06 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I also wish to alert ccp of their mistakes regarding the adding of agents they did last year, so they dont repeat the same mistake. end
[ 2010.06.12 18:14:34 ] Ankhesentapemkah > ! sorry one more thing
[ 2010.06.12 18:14:39 ] Mynxee > go
[ 2010.06.12 18:14:47 ] Ankhesentapemkah > under NDA please so omit form records.

(Content removed due to NDA)

[ 2010.06.12 18:16:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end of NDA content.
[ 2010.06.12 18:17:02 ] Mynxee > thanks ankh
[ 2010.06.12 18:17:25 ] ALPHA12125 > ! something offtopic

(Content removed due to NDA)

[ 2010.06.12 18:20:23 ] Mynxee > back on topic
[ 2010.06.12 18:20:30 ] Mynxee > dv is next
[ 2010.06.12 18:20:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we can vote :) end
[ 2010.06.12 18:20:41 ] Mynxee > me too
[ 2010.06.12 18:20:52 ] Mynxee > let's vote for Spreading Out Mission Runners, aye or nay
[ 2010.06.12 18:20:56 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:00 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:01 ] TeaDaze > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:04 ] Mynxee > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:06 ] Trebor Daehdoow > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:10 ] Ankhesentapemkah > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:16 ] Sokratesz > y
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:28 ] ALPHA12125 > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:21:56 ] TeaDaze > passed 9 for
[ 2010.06.12 18:22:17 ] Mynxee > =============================================Next Up: COloring Stars By Systems I Can Jump To, raised by Mynxee
[ 2010.06.12 18:22:19 ] Sokratesz > how many items left? i gtg
[ 2010.06.12 18:22:22 ] Mynxee > http://www.evelopedia.com/en/wiki/Colour_Stars_By:_Systems_I_can_jump_to_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.06.12 18:22:32 ] Mynxee > this and ankh's ui one
[ 2010.06.12 18:22:35 ] Sokratesz > k
[ 2010.06.12 18:22:52 ] Mynxee > this is a simple request: Add option to colour stars on map that are within current jump drive range.
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:06 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:06 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:09 ] Mynxee > would allow less reliance on out of game tools ... which is real helpful to laptop users
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:11 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:11 ] Mynxee > sok
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:21 ] Sokratesz > for love of gos yes, i always wonder how the hell people moved caps before ICSC started the jump planner
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:27 ] Sokratesz > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:32 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > how is this different from the current ingame 'lightyear bubble'? Its not a bad idea though :) end
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:44 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:49 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:23:50 ] Mynxee > vuk
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > could you answer my question first?
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:04 ] Sokratesz > due to way map is displayed it can be difficult rotating it to see which systems are exactly in or out the bubble [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:09 ] Sokratesz > for dv
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:17 ] Mynxee > what sok said.
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:24 ] Vuk Lau > u already have capital navigation window ingame
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:43 ] Vuk Lau > bah I am not in capital ship now
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:46 ] Sokratesz > that only really helps for beacons
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:52 ] Sokratesz > not if you are looking for a place to cyno to
[ 2010.06.12 18:24:53 ] Vuk Lau > yeah
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:05 ] Mynxee > my feeling is being able to see stars of a color is easy when trying to figure out where you CAN go next
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:05 ] Vuk Lau > yeah I know I ment to integrate it into it
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:22 ] Mynxee > korvin
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:26 ] Sokratesz > that'd be cool yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:27 ] Vuk Lau > I didnt finished
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:35 ] Mynxee > sorry vuk. i fail :)
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:40 ] Vuk Lau > Mynxee are u aware of Capital Navigation window
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:46 ] Mynxee > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:25:49 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:26:10 ] Vuk Lau > kk (just addition to the issue) I would like to see it integrate it into it, among making stars looking differents
[ 2010.06.12 18:26:11 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2010.06.12 18:26:21 ] Mynxee > korvin
[ 2010.06.12 18:26:26 ] Korvin > it is a very usefull feature for blackops roamings, when you send the bait with cyno fitted ets [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:26:36 ] Mynxee > td
[ 2010.06.12 18:27:10 ] TeaDaze > I like the idea that you could look for the number of pilots in space with one filter then swap to "systems I can jump to" filter and see if you can make it. Also agree with Korvin that this could help plan blackops drops [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:27:45 ] Mynxee > i think we can vote then.
[ 2010.06.12 18:27:45 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:27:50 ] Mynxee > oh wait
[ 2010.06.12 18:27:53 ] Mynxee > treb go
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:12 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Simple, useful, and probably easy to implement - what is not to like? [end] <-- of the drama about my vote on this issue
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:33 ] Mynxee > Let's Vote, then. Aye or Nay for Color Stars...
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:36 ] Trebor Daehdoow > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:37 ] Mynxee > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:41 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:43 ] Sokratesz > yesssssss
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:45 ] TeaDaze > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:46 ] Ankhesentapemkah > sure why not :)
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:50 ] Vuk Lau > y
[ 2010.06.12 18:28:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > aye (blackop hotdrops best hotdrops)
[ 2010.06.12 18:29:23 ] Mynxee > alpha?
[ 2010.06.12 18:29:25 ] ALPHA12125 > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:29:28 ] TeaDaze > passed 9 for
[ 2010.06.12 18:29:34 ] Mynxee > vote closed.
[ 2010.06.12 18:29:39 ] Mynxee > =============================================
[ 2010.06.12 18:30:05 ] Mynxee > next up (and last issue to vote on): Ankh's Commit to Fixing the UI
[ 2010.06.12 18:30:14 ] Mynxee > http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Commit_to_Fixing_the_UI_%28CSM%29
[ 2010.06.12 18:30:20 ] Mynxee > ankh you have the floor
[ 2010.06.12 18:30:49 ] Ankhesentapemkah > CCP stated in the past that they want to do a full overhaul of the user interface, but that was two years ago and so far I havent heard or seen anything major on this area of the game.
[ 2010.06.12 18:31:17 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I think that the UI is one of the most important aspects of the game, as it affects all players, and is what gives new players their first impression of the game.
[ 2010.06.12 18:31:27 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:31:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > While we can keep raising minor UI fix issues, the issue itself is major and I believe the underlying system is dated and needs a revamp.
[ 2010.06.12 18:32:03 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:32:54 ] Sokratesz > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:32:55 ] Ankhesentapemkah > CCP should commit to fixing the user interface and have a few interaction designers work out the usability issues, with the industry aspects in particular.
[ 2010.06.12 18:33:49 ] Ankhesentapemkah > There was some controversity about modular UI, I assure you modular means that players can toggle or change parts of the UI which CCP has made, not load player-created mods.
[ 2010.06.12 18:33:54 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:33:54 ] Ankhesentapemkah > that would be a seperate issue.
[ 2010.06.12 18:34:03 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:34:10 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end I guess due to the amount of questions.
[ 2010.06.12 18:34:17 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 18:34:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > The UI greatly affects how easy Eve is to pick up - and unfortunately the current 'desktop setup' for their UI (windows and right click menus) just are not user friendly. Even though eve remains a complex game, there is huge amounts of improvements...
[ 2010.06.12 18:34:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > ...possible that would make eve easier, more pleasant to use as well as attract more new players. this should be supported. end
[ 2010.06.12 18:34:55 ] Mynxee > korvin
[ 2010.06.12 18:35:00 ] Korvin > I do agree, ant UI is a weak spot of EVE, but I don't agree with a proposal name, there is nothing about "fixing", there is a demand to revamp the whole UI, and that need a huge amount of dev resources.
[ 2010.06.12 18:35:09 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:35:15 ] Mynxee > sok
[ 2010.06.12 18:35:20 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:35:26 ] Sokratesz > i believe last news from ccp was they were already working on revamping the ui, or at least it was planned for within the next year or so. that said it will not hurt if we bug them (briefly!) about it again [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:35:38 ] Mynxee > td
[ 2010.06.12 18:35:38 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:36:00 ] TeaDaze > I would like an amendment to this issue that the recent direction CCP have taken with the UI - specifically the full screen PI interface where the button locations are fixed (or were the last time I played with it) is fail
[ 2010.06.12 18:36:21 ] TeaDaze > It is a backwards step [etc]
[ 2010.06.12 18:36:39 ] ALPHA12125 > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:37:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:37:59 ] TeaDaze > oops, [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:38:06 ] Mynxee > lol vuk
[ 2010.06.12 18:38:11 ] Vuk Lau > we voted against player addons jftr, otherwise yes I agree with the issue (end)
[ 2010.06.12 18:38:20 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 18:38:24 ] Trebor Daehdoow > I broadly agree with Korvin.  Reforming the UI is a crucial existential issue for EVE, it touches on so many aspects of the game, in particular retention of new players. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:38:33 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 18:38:34 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I was not aware of that sok, but at least I think the CSM could contribute. If we learn during the first 5 minutes that this is alreadly planned, then we can still use the discussion time productively to comment constructively and possibly help steer
[ 2010.06.12 18:39:17 ] Ankhesentapemkah > in the right direction and avoid them creating another PI-style interface as TD pointed out correctly, end
[ 2010.06.12 18:39:25 ] Mynxee > alpha
[ 2010.06.12 18:40:09 ] ALPHA12125 > agree with the issue and the problems it has, i think adding td auggestions is important as you have limiling possibilites to discuss with ccp about underlying framework
[ 2010.06.12 18:40:28 ] ALPHA12125 > and show them more what direction the ui should take
[ 2010.06.12 18:40:32 ] ALPHA12125 > (end)
[ 2010.06.12 18:40:38 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 18:40:49 ] Dierdra Vaal > to teadaze: I actually think the PI ui is quite good  - it focuses your attention on the game rather than some artificial window. You can in fact move most 'windows'/popups within the PI ui.
[ 2010.06.12 18:41:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > as I feel the PI ui is at least a step in the right direction (compared to POS reactions for example), I will only support this issue if it is not ammended to include criticism on the PI ui.
[ 2010.06.12 18:41:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 18:41:51 ] Mynxee > One of the reasons I suggested UI Fixes: Backlog Status as a round table tpic was to figure out just where things stand, related to sok's comment. And many UI issues have disappeared into the backlog.
[ 2010.06.12 18:41:53 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:42:00 ] Mynxee > td go
[ 2010.06.12 18:42:00 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:42:44 ] TeaDaze > AFAIK in PI mode you cannot move the left hand section which has the accept and cancel buttons among other things. This clashes with my chat windows and is chuffing annoying
[ 2010.06.12 18:42:57 ] Dierdra Vaal > thats the only thing you cant move tho ;)
[ 2010.06.12 18:43:07 ] TeaDaze > I thought we got rid of the full screen crappy UIs when they reworked the station windows
[ 2010.06.12 18:43:14 ] TeaDaze > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:43:51 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 18:43:52 ] Ankhesentapemkah > was not planning to amend the issue to include specific critcism as that's not what the issue is about, style preference is opinion anyway, althougth TD is welcome to criticize the PI UI or aspects thereof in the actual meeting. end
[ 2010.06.12 18:45:09 ] Mynxee > i feel your issue is somewhat nebulous as defined, ankh, but agree the UI needs serious attention.
[ 2010.06.12 18:45:24 ] Mynxee > and this proopsal is similar to commit to excellence but with a focus on the ui
[ 2010.06.12 18:45:30 ] Sokratesz > yup
[ 2010.06.12 18:45:59 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:46:14 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 18:46:29 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I'm happy to listen to feedback and make the issue doc less nebulous we can still do that before tuesday.
[ 2010.06.12 18:46:30 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 18:47:20 ] Dierdra Vaal > vote?
[ 2010.06.12 18:47:23 ] Sokratesz > yea
[ 2010.06.12 18:47:29 ] Mynxee > actually i originally didn't support it due to the fact that it's nebulous but i think that...like commit to excellence...it could be a good way to strive for a more unified approach in the UI design.
[ 2010.06.12 18:47:54 ] Mynxee > yes let's vote. Yay or Nay for Commit to Fixing the UI
[ 2010.06.12 18:47:59 ] Dierdra Vaal > yay
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:00 ] Sokratesz > yay
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:01 ] Trebor Daehdoow > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:04 ] Ankhesentapemkah > yes :)
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:10 ] Mynxee > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:13 ] ALPHA12125 > aye
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:17 ] TeaDaze > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:21 ] Vuk Lau > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:36 ] Korvin > y
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:42 ] TeaDaze > passed 9 for
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:49 ] Sokratesz > before we close the meeting i would like to have something added to the minutes, that possible?
[ 2010.06.12 18:48:58 ] TeaDaze > sure
[ 2010.06.12 18:49:08 ] Mynxee > we have another big issue to discuss and that is the summit agenda
[ 2010.06.12 18:49:08 ] Sokratesz > If I break a period of silence after a certain member says something silly with an equally silly remark, I do not appreciate threatening comments made off the record by meeting participants in an unannounced personal conversation.
[ 2010.06.12 18:49:09 ] Sokratesz > If you have problems with my behaviour during these meetings you can say so right here in front of everybody else, and leave the sneaking about to the real politicians.
[ 2010.06.12 18:49:31 ] Sokratesz > end
[ 2010.06.12 18:49:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > sure :)
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:01 ] Mynxee > umm sure?
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:17 ] Dierdra Vaal > your snide remark towards ank during her (IIRC) first issue was unneeded, unprofessional and uncourteous.
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > dont do it again
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > happy now?
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:41 ] Mynxee > you refer to the "blue sky' comment?
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:47 ] Dierdra Vaal > yup
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:53 ] Mynxee > agreed.
[ 2010.06.12 18:50:56 ] Mynxee > now let's move on.
[ 2010.06.12 18:51:20 ] Mynxee > the summit agenda we submitted is being questioned by petur
[ 2010.06.12 18:51:33 ] ALPHA12125 > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:51:34 ] Mynxee > did everyone read the email conversation between him/me that i posted to the list?
[ 2010.06.12 18:51:45 ] Mynxee > alpha go
[ 2010.06.12 18:51:45 ] Korvin > yes
[ 2010.06.12 18:51:58 ] ALPHA12125 > since i alternative and i am not going, am i needed anymore ?
[ 2010.06.12 18:52:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:52:11 ] Mynxee > no and thanks for your participation
[ 2010.06.12 18:52:15 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 18:52:21 ] Dierdra Vaal > "I'd like to have your reasoning on why the CSM should not have any specific topics raised to CCP on behalf of the community." -Xhagen
[ 2010.06.12 18:52:36 ] Dierdra Vaal > I strongly disagree with his assertion that they are not specific topics raised by the community
[ 2010.06.12 18:52:46 ] TeaDaze > (I agree with DV)
[ 2010.06.12 18:52:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > FW has come up numerous times, a call for excellence too, as well as 0.0 and UI issues
[ 2010.06.12 18:53:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we ARE strongly representing the biggest and most talked about issues.
[ 2010.06.12 18:53:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 18:53:13 ] Mynxee > (I think ccp is wearing blinkers wrt process)
[ 2010.06.12 18:53:31 ] Korvin > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:53:57 ] Mynxee > korvin
[ 2010.06.12 18:54:19 ] Korvin > there is 2 reason for me, why that happened
[ 2010.06.12 18:55:16 ] Sokratesz > i gotta run catch last bus, i trust you can settle this as i'm undecided myself
[ 2010.06.12 18:55:24 ] Korvin > 1 - we made a roundtable topics, where we can rise some real issues we have, and have the whole picture instead of fuzzy bunchof issues
[ 2010.06.12 18:55:35 ] Mynxee > ty sok
[ 2010.06.12 18:55:39 ] Sokratesz > later o/
[ 2010.06.12 18:55:52 ] Korvin > 2 - there is a lot of issues, were rised already by the previous 4 CSMs
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:11 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:15 ] Korvin > and need to be revised and updated with the current state of the game
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:18 ] Mynxee > whoops
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:19 ] Korvin > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:19 ] Dierdra Vaal > (korvin isnt finished yet)
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:22 ] Mynxee > after korvin is done
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:26 ] Korvin > np
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:30 ] Mynxee > (i hit return too fast)
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > I would also add that there werent many issues on the CSM4 list that needed discussion...
[ 2010.06.12 18:56:48 ] Dierdra Vaal > and those that DID need discussion fall into on of our roundtables.
[ 2010.06.12 18:57:03 ] Dierdra Vaal > so I think our original distribution is the most efficient use of the CSM and CCPs time.
[ 2010.06.12 18:57:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 18:57:37 ] Mynxee > i think the issue is that CCP can't wrap their heads around the fact that we can raise issues in the roundtables that are related, that have been passed. and that those issues will form a basis for discussion. end.
[ 2010.06.12 18:58:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > what do you think is the best way to explain it?
[ 2010.06.12 18:58:34 ] TeaDaze > !
[ 2010.06.12 18:58:43 ] Mynxee > well i did that somewhat in my email. but perhaps you can draft a more detailed response? go TD
[ 2010.06.12 18:59:08 ] Mynxee > (also I plan to mail petur the prioritized list of 29 issues from csm4, btw.)
[ 2010.06.12 18:59:42 ] TeaDaze > CCP changed the format for CSM4 summit which is why we have applied for more roundtables this time and less "individual" issues
[ 2010.06.12 19:00:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:00:13 ] TeaDaze > I'm surprised they are surprised that CSM5 have attempted to make better use of the CSM4 roundtable structure that CCP started... [end]
[ 2010.06.12 19:00:18 ] Mynxee > surely xhagen of all people would be aware of that :)go DV
[ 2010.06.12 19:00:48 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:00:51 ] Dierdra Vaal > with my question I actually mean "how can we explain this to xhagen so our agenda remains unchanged instead of CCP throwing some of our issues out to make room for the CSM4 issues list (which I'm worried about)"
[ 2010.06.12 19:00:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:01 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:14 ] Ankhesentapemkah > how will the UI and missison issues be integrated in the current schedule?
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:16 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:27 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:42 ] Mynxee > DV maybe we look at combing UI Backlog + Backlog prioritization into one session and opening 1 session for the "29 CSM4 Issues"
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:50 ] Mynxee > ankh: i think they are essentially raised in teh relevant roundtable
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:56 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:01:59 ] Mynxee > there is a PVE roundtable
[ 2010.06.12 19:02:06 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 19:02:09 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Stakeholders: "These are the people who enable the project and for whom the project will produce the agreed-upon benefit[s], which justify its production"
[ 2010.06.12 19:02:15 ] Trebor Daehdoow > OK, if we're stakeholders, then the benefits we should be championing in Iceland are not so much individual proposals, but the larger group issues.
[ 2010.06.12 19:02:21 ] Trebor Daehdoow > If this is not what CCP wants, then they ought to clearly explain what they want and why, so that we can decide if we agree.
[ 2010.06.12 19:02:32 ] Trebor Daehdoow > At least, that's my current understanding. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 19:02:41 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 19:02:46 ] Dierdra Vaal > I actually think backlog prioritisation is better suited in the 'eve development' and not with the ui discussion. end.
[ 2010.06.12 19:03:05 ] Mynxee > or that, suits me either way. ankh
[ 2010.06.12 19:03:11 ] Ankhesentapemkah > PVE is huge (exploration and mining for example) and the issue is rather specific and detailed and probably needs a lot of discussion what the correct approach is and how to tie it into other playstyles. end.
[ 2010.06.12 19:03:29 ] Mynxee > even so, we have to choose our battles
[ 2010.06.12 19:03:37 ] Mynxee > we coudl meet for two weeks solid on pve and not cover all the bases
[ 2010.06.12 19:03:42 ] Mynxee > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:03:42 ] Vuk Lau > exactly
[ 2010.06.12 19:03:55 ] Dierdra Vaal > we're most likely also focusing on missions anyway when we discuss pve
[ 2010.06.12 19:04:10 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I'd also like to discuss mining in detail actually.
[ 2010.06.12 19:04:23 ] Mynxee > and since we passed two mission related issues, then i propose that's what the pve session focus on
[ 2010.06.12 19:04:33 ] Mynxee > mining is a separate topic altogether and has not been brought up
[ 2010.06.12 19:04:41 ] Mynxee > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:04:41 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:04:42 ] Ankhesentapemkah > but it is PVE so I thought it'd go in there
[ 2010.06.12 19:04:48 ] Mynxee > vuk
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:06 ] Vuk Lau > I just want to point that 1 hour roundtables are EXTREMELLY short ammount of time to cover some of the issues
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:09 ] Mynxee > ankh: yeah i hear you, but again, only so many cookies fit in the cookie jar.
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:17 ] Vuk Lau > like 0.0. FW, lowsec and such
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:24 ] Mynxee > vuk agreed. 100%.
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:31 ] Vuk Lau > so you need to be aware then we need to be highly efficient during meetings
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:39 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:45 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:56 ] Mynxee > low sec got two hours due to it being on so many platforms this time around. and yes agree about going into those meetings well prepared.
[ 2010.06.12 19:05:58 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 19:06:01 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I understand we dont have slots for everything but putting the specific mission issues into PVE would be like shoving FW into lowsec. end
[ 2010.06.12 19:06:29 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:06:36 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 19:07:14 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Given the time constraints, these roundtables must be kept high-level.  No specific details.  That stuff gets worked out later.
[ 2010.06.12 19:08:00 ] Dierdra Vaal > (may I point out that argueing about specific roundtables is off topic here: the issue is xhagen thinks our issues do not represent the community)
[ 2010.06.12 19:08:02 ] Trebor Daehdoow > Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.  We need to get CCP to commit to doing things like fixing PVE or the UI, then help guide them to solutions that our constituents want. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 19:08:53 ] Mynxee > dv i think petur's problem is he doesn't see ccp walking away from those round tables with a "list of things CSM wants done"
[ 2010.06.12 19:09:12 ] Dierdra Vaal > oh we will give them a list of things to do
[ 2010.06.12 19:09:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > they wont need to worry about that :P
[ 2010.06.12 19:09:19 ] TeaDaze > that hasn't exactly worked in the past ;)
[ 2010.06.12 19:09:21 ] Mynxee > haha
[ 2010.06.12 19:09:43 ] Dierdra Vaal > they are not just open ended discussions
[ 2010.06.12 19:10:02 ] Dierdra Vaal > they are all discussions about problems and how we (the people!) want ccp to solve them
[ 2010.06.12 19:10:17 ] TeaDaze > Indeed DV - each is about an area which hasn't seen any improvement in a while
[ 2010.06.12 19:10:25 ] Mynxee > difference of perception us vs them, then?
[ 2010.06.12 19:10:33 ] Dierdra Vaal > may be
[ 2010.06.12 19:10:41 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:10:54 ] TeaDaze > And if it doesn't work this summit then we do something different for the second
[ 2010.06.12 19:11:08 ] Mynxee > i raise the question however, considering the two issue of ankh's that were passed. Do we need to look at adding a "Missions" session?
[ 2010.06.12 19:11:11 ] Mynxee > go dv
[ 2010.06.12 19:11:16 ] Dierdra Vaal > so can I ask that mynxee responds to CCP highlighting the following things:
[ 2010.06.12 19:11:53 ] Dierdra Vaal > 1) Our issues DO represent the community, and do this more than a lot of individual items as these 'meta issues' catch a lot of previous issues...
[ 2010.06.12 19:12:02 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:12:07 ] Dierdra Vaal > 2) That CCP has always ask the CSM to come up with more 'big picture' discussions
[ 2010.06.12 19:12:13 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:12:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > and 3) That they will not be open ended discussions but focussed and will provide a to-do list for CCP
[ 2010.06.12 19:12:35 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:12:46 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 19:12:48 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I'd like to call it a 'dynamic content' session, not strictly a mission section, as this issue could also apply to exploration, Factional Warfare and live events or be used for other systems.
[ 2010.06.12 19:13:04 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:13:08 ] Ankhesentapemkah > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:13:10 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 19:13:27 ] Trebor Daehdoow > They want a list of potholes they can fill.  We want a say in where the roads go. Ahnk: focus.  Pick one thing, and focus the session on it.
[ 2010.06.12 19:13:44 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:13:56 ] Vuk Lau > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:00 ] Trebor Daehdoow > If you dilute things too much, you've just reinvented homeopathy -- and it will be just a placebo.  It will make you feel better but not do any long term good. [end]
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:06 ] Mynxee > dv
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:11 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think focussing the Pve roundtable on missions would be better - we dont have room in the schedule for another roundtable so adding one means scrapping another. And while missions have come up, exploration and mining noticably less. We can always....
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:26 ] Dierdra Vaal > do things in december. Not everything needs to be covered now. end
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:44 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:48 ] Mynxee > also note that we may need to cover teh CSM4 "29" in a session that there currently isnt room for
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:51 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:54 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I could put the agents thing in the PVE session and the rest in this dynamic content issue. But that would mean two slots still... hmm. end
[ 2010.06.12 19:14:59 ] Mynxee > vuk
[ 2010.06.12 19:15:03 ] Vuk Lau > I wouldnt mind discussint everything we can think off, but as I said we are extremelly limited with time. Related to that, we should approach CCP about prolonging CSM stay on Iceland for one more day, cause TBH Iceland summit is productive as much
[ 2010.06.12 19:15:12 ] Vuk Lau > as all our rabble here all together
[ 2010.06.12 19:15:23 ] Ankhesentapemkah > \0/ vuk :)
[ 2010.06.12 19:15:32 ] Vuk Lau > and with time and nw with stakeholder thing, we have increased workload
[ 2010.06.12 19:15:38 ] Vuk Lau > not to mention with huge backlog
[ 2010.06.12 19:15:39 ] Vuk Lau > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:15:50 ] Mynxee > agree vuk. treb
[ 2010.06.12 19:16:07 ] Trebor Daehdoow > We need to focus on things that are achievable, so in Dec we can say 'Look, our way works'.
[ 2010.06.12 19:16:11 ] Trebor Daehdoow > [end]
[ 2010.06.12 19:16:44 ] Mynxee > good point. the mission stuff is pretty specific and could be a launching point for other pve content to be discussed in Dec. Ankh, your thoughts?
[ 2010.06.12 19:17:27 ] Mynxee > (or anyone else's)
[ 2010.06.12 19:17:48 ] Ankhesentapemkah > hmm yes if I get enough time to discuss these things, which I worry about. dynamic missions, agent distribution, possibly sleeper AI someone wanted to discuss...
[ 2010.06.12 19:18:31 ] Mynxee > (NOTE: Weather conspiracy here, storms may cause connection loss LOL)
[ 2010.06.12 19:18:37 ] Dierdra Vaal > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:18:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > I think we need to wrap up the meeting - can we please come to a conclusion on this item? (I have one small thing to add after this)
[ 2010.06.12 19:18:59 ] Mynxee > if i drop, dv take over and resolve actions regarding schedule.
[ 2010.06.12 19:19:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > (end)
[ 2010.06.12 19:19:45 ] Trebor Daehdoow > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:20:12 ] Mynxee > ok: 1) will reply to xhagen w/dv's suggested points2) ankh discuss missions in PVE session3) we will agree on itnernal forums how to combine/remove 1 other item to free up a "CSM4 29" session
[ 2010.06.12 19:20:17 ] Mynxee > treb
[ 2010.06.12 19:20:22 ] Trebor Daehdoow > I ought to expand on my previous statement, to make it clear that while these sessions should focus on the big issues (like PVE, UI, nullsec), we ought to be ready with an action plan that can show definite results in a single cycle.
[ 2010.06.12 19:20:36 ] Trebor Daehdoow > And keep in mind, there are out-of-meeting opportunities to promote our positions.  I am told that some ccp devs have a fondness for ethanol, for example. ok, thats all from me on this [end]
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:13 ] Vuk Lau > I also have one thing to ask some of you after the meeting is over
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:16 ] Mynxee > is everyone in agreement with my list above as the key things we gotta do to resolve the summit agenda question?
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:18 ] Vuk Lau > well all of you
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:23 ] Dierdra Vaal > agree
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:35 ] TeaDaze > agreed
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:39 ] Vuk Lau > add prolonging CSM-CCP summit for future due to increased workload
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:43 ] Trebor Daehdoow > aye
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:44 ] Vuk Lau > if others agree ofc
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:45 ] Ankhesentapemkah > err and the UI issue, was there a slot for that already?
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:54 ] Vuk Lau > yes it is
[ 2010.06.12 19:21:58 ] Dierdra Vaal > there's a UI discussion
[ 2010.06.12 19:22:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > which is basically exactly your issue
[ 2010.06.12 19:22:11 ] Trebor Daehdoow > http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1332432&page=2
[ 2010.06.12 19:22:15 ] Mynxee > i propse we use the internal csm forums to hash out the details
[ 2010.06.12 19:22:16 ] Ankhesentapemkah > okay then I agree for the sake of not causing trouble with the schedule, although I'm heavily in favor for one more day
[ 2010.06.12 19:22:37 ] Mynxee > agreed we'll ask for four days in Dec
[ 2010.06.12 19:22:51 ] Mynxee > any other business?
[ 2010.06.12 19:22:54 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes
[ 2010.06.12 19:23:00 ] Mynxee > go dv
[ 2010.06.12 19:23:18 ] Dierdra Vaal > I want to make an excellence presentation for use during that issue - and I know ank's making a FW presentation
[ 2010.06.12 19:23:30 ] Dierdra Vaal > maybe more of you are making presentations for various issues (low sec, 0.0?)
[ 2010.06.12 19:23:31 ] Dierdra Vaal > anyway
[ 2010.06.12 19:23:43 ] Vuk Lau > i will do the 0.0 one most likely
[ 2010.06.12 19:23:56 ] Dierdra Vaal > I will post the initial setup of the excellence presentation tomorrow on the internal forums - feedback is of course appreciated
[ 2010.06.12 19:24:09 ] Dierdra Vaal > I suggest the other presentations are handled the same way
[ 2010.06.12 19:24:10 ] Dierdra Vaal > end
[ 2010.06.12 19:24:30 ] Mynxee > i am putting together notes on the low sec one and yes may i please request that we all engage very actively on the CSM internal forums to remain well advised what we are each doing.
[ 2010.06.12 19:25:12 ] Mynxee > the forums document our work together for future CSM's so it's a good thing to do from that perspective as well.
[ 2010.06.12 19:25:14 ] Dierdra Vaal > keep in mind that some of us (I think teadaze and myself) are leaving for iceland the 19th (teadaze maybe 18th?) so dont wait until enxt weekend please
[ 2010.06.12 19:25:31 ] Mynxee > kk i'm working on my stuff tomorrow
[ 2010.06.12 19:25:33 ] Ankhesentapemkah > !
[ 2010.06.12 19:25:34 ] Trebor Daehdoow > As long as the presentations represent the consensus view of the council, I have no problem with this.  I can take the lag one.
[ 2010.06.12 19:25:38 ] Mynxee > ankh
[ 2010.06.12 19:25:59 ] Ankhesentapemkah > I'd like to apologize for not spending enough time on the CSM last week, been very busy with the elections and had crunch time for the next release of our game
[ 2010.06.12 19:26:10 ] Ankhesentapemkah > it'll be a lot better from now on.
[ 2010.06.12 19:26:29 ] Mynxee > cool. all good.

(Advert removed as requested by chair)

[ 2010.06.12 19:27:09 ] Mynxee > ok
[ 2010.06.12 19:27:11 ] Mynxee > we're done?
[ 2010.06.12 19:27:24 ] TeaDaze > next meeting is the summit?
[ 2010.06.12 19:27:25 ] Vuk Lau > yes close the meeting pls so I can raise one issue thanx :p
[ 2010.06.12 19:27:44 ] Mynxee > yes next meeting is summit, after that back to 2nd saturday, 4th sunday for working meetings
[ 2010.06.12 19:27:45 ] Dierdra Vaal > yes TD
[ 2010.06.12 19:28:22 ] Mynxee > we'll continue discussions in the forums as needed.
[ 2010.06.12 19:28:25 ] Mynxee > ===========================================MEETING 003 ADJOURNED