News from the team!

[feneur]

I have for quite some time felt that 0 A.D. deserves a more passionate and active project leader than me. I still care for the project and its progress, but I don't have the same interest in it any more. That might be fine for a semi-regular contributor, but it's not ideal when you're the project leader.

Now I've found the perfect replacement: Nicolas Auvray, also known as Itms on the forums and in the IRC channels. He has been a part of the project for several years now, and has proved to be a valuable contributor, a sensible and thoughtful leader, and a good friend. I asked him whether he wanted to take over the leadership, after careful consideration he said yes and we presented the possibility to the team who agreed it was a good choice to move forward with Nicolas as the leader.

I have confidence he will revitalize the team and work to guide 0 A.D. through the Alpha process and into Beta and beyond. I will still be around to help out with administrative tasks, being a part of Wildfire Games is too great to miss out on completely.

Please also welcome Imarok who just became a part of the team! He's been an active and skillful contributor for quite some time now, so it's nice to be able to encourage that by welcoming him into the team.

[Itms]

I am deeply honored to become the new Project Leader after Erik, who has been an incredible source of motivation since I first started to contribute to 0 A.D.

As a programmer of the game, you should expect my first objectives to be related to the technical side of things. I would like to improve the environment of the programming team, in order to make the development less difficult and stressful; and I also plan to focus my programming activity on the libraries we use, and on communicating with the teams who create those. If we improve that environment, we can recruit new people and have more workforce to push the game towards Beta.

However, I also want to be an actual leader for the project and its community as a whole, so feel free to contact me if you think something is needed in some area. I will be far more active in the forums than before, and I'm eager to discuss with you all!

Finally, I would like to thank everyone for being part of such a great community. The game would be nowhere near its current state without you, and we can accomplish even more great things together!

[Lion.Kanzen]

I noticed the red color today... Congrats Nicolas.

[SGK7019]

Congratulations, it must be an honour, as you said!

[av93]

Good luck for both!
 

[Stan`]

Congrats Nicolas

[sphyrth]

As with all projects, the torch must be passed on.

[shieldwolf23]

Congrats Nicolas, and thank you for your leadership, Erik. Here's toast for both of you, and for the future of 0 AD! 

[GunChleoc]

Thank you all for your work on 0AD

[Star01]

Congrats.. Thank you for everything you did

[Radagast.]

What I liked is not that you step back. It's your first sentence. Everything else would have been even nastier by me than I usually am considering our past quarrels that we fought - even though I liked your forwardness..

As Niek once said and I thought about it frequently, feneur could have also been a leader of a closed source project but he has promoted open source. An honourable course that my minor self still falls back at - at least in terms of 0 B.C., a sister project.

From back then when Itms was called up quickly into the wildfire team, it had to be expected that there were some special feelings or meta involved. While I reject hierarchies (as is known too much here, I'm afraid) I welcome the passionate speech of our world citizen comrade. Thank you for enthusiasm.

When I saw FeXoR in the team, my opinion changed. Also that elexis put drive in to get s2... resources patch in despite some not so nice words to the busy s2... it took long and my respect for the iron nerves (as LordGood might put it) of s2 which I - especially in terms of "review" - do not have as also is scarily known under our folks.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Radagast.
the sister project -> a sister project

[feneur]

@Radagast. Either you use the word quarrel to refer to disagreements or we have different views of the past. I do remember us having differences of opinion in the past if that is what you mean, but if you think of it as quarrels I can't fit that to the memories of the past I have.

We do ask people who have shown that they have talent (combined with an understanding of the limits to their talents, one needs to be able to see when one needs to ask for help/testing/someone elses opinion or we will have a lot of unnecessary bugs committed), a will to keep on working and a good attitude to join the team. As far as I know there has not been anything other than that involved in any of those decisions. Speaking of hierarchy/authority I personally feel as if one of the main weaknesses of my leadership is a lack of it, and that we could have been better off if we had had a project leader who would have been prepared to make some more tough decisions. Committees and discussions and trying to get everyone to agree on things are useful to a degree, but in some cases they can be a burden and most certainly slow progress.

About reviews: If someone feels as if they have been treated disrespectfully I encourage them to let us know, as that is not something we want to stand for. We do not want the game to become too unstable either though, so thorough reviews are needed, even if it can feel a bit hard to have the things you have worked on be criticized. (There actually has been some in-team controversy suggesting that we are too relaxed in our review process, so there is more than one side to things )

[Radagast.]

I agree, words are often chosen too harsh and using quarrel is one such example and I regret having used it. It is appreciated to call it disagreement and I like that we are able to speak about this openly.

What I meant with the team join was i no way material so I did not want to insult the team of poisoned preferences or unfair team consideration, I rather thought about feelings and some meta sphere, which of course is not scientifically evident and I understand what you mean and fully agree, because interest and passion is crucial to not fall deep in a world where things just too often not turn out as one may desire or imagine.

Not that I propose anarchy, it is no less controllable as can be seen in the world even in democratic systems which is why aristocracy or intellectual rule is often lightly/at first view considered as preferable by a minority which may also lead to instability too (because the majority feels abused/put aside/overlooked, the typical problem).

=> So there may be no ideal solution at our hands other than to inform freely and openly and objectively such that the majority elects / chooses sensible candidates (difficult) and more importantly objective, multi-faceted decisions in our democratic system.

And a democracy elects leaders. And to find potential objective and wise leaders is the major problem ever since Ancient times and likely way before.

While you may not have been elected, your leadership and decisions base on a consensus and you be honored for that.

That said I still have the opinion that - especially for soft / wise leaders it is important to not promote oneself and part of this is to not try to make one different to be consistent. In the real life of course being a soft leaders risks that sharks come by and replace you but this endeavor, 0 A.D., is no such project as an intellectual part is significant here and a majority of intellectuals can be expected to not overthrow soft leaders when their reasoning is objective and honest.)

A conclusion may be that no such hierarchies are required at all in open source projects, because objectivity is the rule that finally prevails, which is consistent with your elaboration about review. While opinion diversity is desirable, it is therefore questionable though when the truth is that hardliners have it a bit easier to dominate such decisions. This is why there is a constitution that protects basic rights and fanatic or hardline - just that the constitution has to be made and the team is who creates it where hardliners have an easier standing again. The circle closes.

It can be seen what I want to say, that while opinion diversity and majority rule is desirable it relies on being informed and discussion and basic rights (which are difficult to define, but openly it may be possible as long it is entirely transparent and interest is shown such that many opinions and a lot of reason, argumentation and experience and thus wisdom is taken into account) which is time consuming and can lead to parties blocking each other and even antipathies.

For me I do - and did even during the disagreements-phase - respect opinion, feedback, improvements, review, suggestions and even reckless overrule by team members as I have shown during the mod manager where sanderd17 and leper missed no opportunity to downgrade my undertakings which afaik I never labelled as perfect, good or whatever.

I also have given in when I made a mistake, was too harsh or similar. The question is just the dominant, resolute and hard line, i.e. the subjective self-confidence some people use to communicate infallibility.

And in such an environment without constitution and even with class society (team leaders, team, self proclaimed council managers, common modders, simple users) there is no place for world citizens that put their own welfare back to help others.

Which is why I reject such a system as I have consistently declared ever since and I won't shy away because it is not about me, I'm not important, I am just a human that wants to make this world a better place for the goodhearted beings. If I'm bashed, hated or disrespected or harmed in other ways - I do not care as long as those that are selflessly worth what Dumbledore and elvish sayings often try to explain are fine,

I hope this clarifies my worries and continued critics. Hate me but do not hate those that still consider me as a partner and talk to me openly.

To me time plays no role. My affairs are settled I have time and do not need or want money or might and will fight peacefully for a better world till the last moment. Therefore there is no ETA (:= estimated time of arrival) for 0 B.C. Time Machine nor for other world development projects. The quest is where to spend my time and I will do it objectively, i.e. where it appears that the time is having the most benefit for the goodhearted beings in the overall world. It's up to you which side you take and it is up to us what we make out of this world. So let's make it epic! (and excuse my long writing)

Edited November 30, 2016 by Radagast.

[shieldwolf23]

And I think you are excused, Radagast. Let's move forward and try to accommodate each other, however rose colored that view is. As you said, let it not be about you nor the past disagreements - the purpose of this thread is to welcome a new lead and to say thanks to the previous one. Let's honor that, and hope the future brings good tidings for all of us.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

Some hierarchy and strong leadership is necessary for the integrity of the project. I detest the view of constant consensus seeking, "comrade" @Radagast. I suspect without strong leaderships especially in beginning of project that the project would have be dead by now. As nearing the end is here (maybe a year or two til beta?), strong leadership is needed again. Hopefully ltms provide this. Feneur is too hard on himseld I think, but at least some change has been recognized. Good for you guys and hopefully stronger going forward.

Edited December 7, 2016 by wowgetoffyourcellphone

[Stan`]

I guess nobody was prepared for such a harsh transition. Jason was a complete leader and that greatly made is life  complicated until he had to make a definitive choice. I think the game found a proper balance when it was mythos + feneur both dividing the tasks at what they were best. And nobody will contest when I say feneur is great at what he does now. So hopefully Itms will bring back balance to the force too =)