What's up with PCGen???

[d20books]

No, you have attacked mynex, but you have also insulted every member of the board.

from the pcgen Y! forum:

"PCGen
BoD and CMP are one in the same in the eyes of many of us"

And how is this a false statement? Given the replies to this forum, it looks to be a very true statement.

Your impelcation here is clear, and you attack every member of the board in this statement. This statement says in not so many words that none of us A) earned our positions, but were given them because we were some how CMP friendly, and B) none of us have any integrity, because we are somehow CMP stooges and will do what is good for CMP over what is good for PCGen.

Your refusal to deliniate between the different parties in the BoD is insulting, intentionally derrogatory and hurtful.

Very few things make me angry, someone intentionally questioning my integrity with nothing to back it up is one of them.

If you want to carry that weight, go ahead. If combining CMP and the PCGen BoD is so hurtful to you, you should be on the bandwagon to creating the documents that I've been asking for for a long time now.

You have asked certain qustions over and over, and many of us have responded - you have ignored our answers and suggestions of solutions and continued to pound on your pulpit.

You and others have responded like you have in this forum, "There is no conflict of interest."

You started posting here...insinuating that the BoD is trying to undermine your character, and lying about our actions:

You guys have secret_reporter, I have ears in places too. I know what is said about me. The difference is that I'm not as sensative about it as you seem to be about my comments.

Since it's clear the only thing that will make you happy is pcgen creating a wall that states CMP is not allowed to do anything related to pcgen, it's kind of hard to solve your problems.

Solutions require people to meet in the middle, not run to the fringe, and refuse to move.

Well, as stated, the Docs Silverback came forward to create the documents that I've requested. Creating a guideline on how all Third-Party Organizations interact with PCGen will clearly outline the boundries of any perceived control CMP has over the PCGen BoD. I'm still in contact with that Docs SB trying to get some action on the proposed documents and trying to get Bryan to admit that CMP is a Third Party organization and sit down with me to create the document. Nothing has happened. I'm not sure which fringe you're referring to.

 

[d20books]

More like having key players in Sun on the leadership for Open Office. Or key players in Netscape on the leadership for Mozilla. Both of which are obviously unthinkably evil as well as unthinkably impossible.

Oh, wait. Both those are true. Ah well. There went my conspiracy theory. (Or was it yours? ;-)

/Jonas, who is cheap enough that he uses Open Office rather than Star Office and sane enough that he uses Mozilla rather than Netscape.

The difference is that those organizations have a formalized set of interactions. Sun cannot make any interactions with Open Office that are not prescribed precisely the same for all third-parties. There is no exclusivity.

The Sun leadership is also not allowed to represent Sun when interacting with Open Office and the Sun leadership cannot represent Open Office when Open office is responding or reacting to Sun.

Given these two key differences, people can look at all the rules and watchdog the interactions for conflict of interests.

 

[LetohNereg]

PCGen is in the process of self-destrucing right now.

If you look carefully between the debate posts (normal for any organisation of PCGen's size) you will see that business is as usual.

All reported user problems were answered and code fixes made where necessary. If you look at the number of trackers fixed since the last release, a huge amount of work was done:

Total issues resolved by group:
Doc Monkeys: 51
Code Monkeys: 45
Data Monkeys: 19
OS Monkeys: 6

And the release of a merged PCGen & GMGen product is a very exiting development!

The foreground discussion is very improtant to the growth of PCGen and some very valid concerns have been raised. These will be dealt with by the PCGen community over time and the project will continue

One of the PCGen Doc Monkeys is willing to sit down and address my concerns over a procedural document about how third party organizations interacts with the PCGen governing body. Partly, this was to help the non-profit but also to outline and draw clear lines between PCGen and CMP. I cannot get "Merton_Monk" to even admit that CMP is a third-party organization. I specifically want to sit down with Merton and the Doc Monkey so that this can be resolved.

I am the mentioned monkey and I am very serious about documenting all relationships, agreements and licences that the community holds. I am happy that Jeff is still happy to contibute as from his last post privately to me he had indicated he couldn't contribute due to his formation of the Non-profit group.

What I need from Jeff is an example of what is required within such a document to satisfy him.

I am in disagreement to those who think that CMP board members constitute a conflict of interests. One of my businesses is an Australian based RPG shop. I admit that one of the reasons I participate so heavily within PCGen is so I can find new customers for my shop. This does not stop me from putting lots of hours into the project, but some would say that I have a conflict of interest. Others have similar side issues and reasons for taking part. I don't see that this matters as long as the PCGen community benefits.


I have the postion of Documantation Silverback due to the fact that I have and do contribute more to the documentation than anyone else currently does. Eddy Anthony currently is closing that gap with the immense amount of work he has put into the List section of the documentation of late and if he out contributed me consistently and wanted the Silverback postion, I would make a recommendation to the BoD that I be replaced as that would be best for the PCGen community (This is unlikely to happen as Eddy does not currently want the extra reponsibility and time commitment that the SB represents). Eddy is currently the Doc team Second in Charge (and a very good one at theat ).

I feel that the BoD is representative of the PCGen community and the model of having the biggest contributor who wants to do the administrative stuff in control of the team is much better than having the most charismatic (and maybe less technically able) person sitting in the seat for the power and glory.

As GMGen has no real documentation at this stage, I am putting out a call to any PCGen user (or past Documentation Monkeys) to assist and leave your own personal mark within the thing that is PCGen. Email me if interested!

It is business as usual at the best RPG Character and GM tools software that is PCGen. We will continue to grow and add user requested features as time rolls along.

Happy gaming!

 

[soulcatcher]

The difference is that those organizations have a formalized set of interactions. Sun cannot make any interactions with Open Office that are not prescribed precisely the same for all third-parties. There is no exclusivity.

The Sun leadership is also not allowed to represent Sun when interacting with Open Office and the Sun leadership cannot represent Open Office when Open office is responding or reacting to Sun.

Given these two key differences, people can look at all the rules and watchdog the interactions for conflict of interests.

That is completly wrong. Sun ships a closed source version of open office called "Star Office". no one else can do this.

Also, a very large percent of the Open Office developers are sun employees.

Sun has exclusivity where CMP does not. CMP couldn't distribute a closed source PCGen if they wanted to - to many people have copyrights in the code.

Sorry, but you just prooved our point. in every one of those cases (Sun/Open Office, Netscape/Mozilla) the corperation has special privlages to release a closed app based on the code base. And these are some of the most successful OSS projects in the world.

CMP has no special rights. None. If you don't like that answer, sorry, cause it's the only one there is. What, do you want the BoD to vote to give CMP extra rights so that you can have some to point to?

Soulcatcher

 

[d20books]

I am the mentioned monkey and I am very serious about documenting all relationships, agreements and licences that the community holds. I am happy that Jeff is still happy to contibute as from his last post privately to me he had indicated he couldn't contribute due to his formation of the Non-profit group.

What I need from Jeff is an example of what is required within such a document to satisfy him.

I'm working on that too. It is hard to trace anything that goes on between CMP and the PCGen BoD in this given situation. I need to fully understand how CMP works with PCGen right now and no one really knows. This is what is the root of the conflict of interest speculations and why I want to create a formalized document to regulate that interaction. It can then be recorded and auditable. People can see the interactions between CMP and PCGen and can then say definitively that there is a conflict of interest or not.

Since I want to create a Third-Party organization myself, sitting down with Shane to draft this document would be a clear conflict of interest. Sitting down with Bryan and working on a document together that will regulate BOTH of our organization's interactions would be entirely more acceptible. Considering how there is conflict between Bryan and me, there would be no speculation about the two of us conspiring together.

 

[Mynex]

Some things to consider (Long post)

1) PCGen wouldn't be around to argue about if not for Bryan and Jonas who started the SF project.

2) The 3 of us that own CMP have worked for a very long time on PCGen, we know how it works and how to specify exactly what's needed to support something.
a) Any feature request we make are geared to enhance the entire project of PCGen, not just for CMP. The more features CMP needs, the more of those that get added into PCGen, the more functionality PCGen has.
i) Given that line of thought - it seems almost stupid for CMP to make feature requests to support data sets we sell, why should we if the users can enter their own with the enhanced functionality? So why would we then? Our service is that, a service, a time saver for the users, nothing more.

3) If Joe Publishers comes in and say "I want my book 'Y of Z' put into PCGen, that doesn't indicate any possible data creation issues - If CMP puts in a feature request for something, it's going to be spefic enough for the data folk to work from immediately instead of getting started and then having to stop and wait for a code request.

4) CMP requests have not taken any resources away from PCGen development. In fact, the code, the docs, and the output sheets have been developed at an impressive rate while data has stagnated over concerns of 'data creation theft' by CMP... which leads me to point 5.

5) CMP uses _NOTHING_ from free volunteer work. EVERTHING is done from the ground up, game mode, bio settings, kits, classes, etc... This point has been made repetedly and often, yet no one seems to want to believe it. *shrug* Not my problem if you don't believe it.
1) It is the PCGen communities problem that it's not believed.
i) Why theirs? Because no new sources get into PCGen for them to use.
2) It is the publishers problem that it's not believed.
i) Their material isn't added to PCGen for the users to experiment with and possibly go buy.

6) It's been stated that CMP and PCGen are at cross odds because we both produce data sets, one for free and one for pay. It's been said that because some of the sets we have on pre-order are OGC only that that something fishy is going on here.
1) Yes there are some agreements we have with publishers that cover OGC only products. Why? Because with an agreement we can do additonal things with that OGC material that PCGen can't. Like Help files with the book contents. Like tying the material in PCGen's GUI to said help files for quick lookup on something. Because of said agreements, we can (in some cases) include portrait art for people to select in their character descriptions.

There are a lot of reasons why PCGen and CMP can do the same sets, none that I can see (and please correct me if I am wrong) that they can not.

7) The Board of Directors of PCGen tried to steal a data monkeys work! *sigh* This is a long one to go over, so I'll try to summarize; AEG has specific items that are IP of WotC, used with WotC's permission. Since hese items belong to WotC, WotC can decide what is allowable with them. It was determined that either the publisher or CMP could host them, since both had permission to. Since the items were not OGC they could not be released in the PCGen official releases. Conversations ensued, lack of communication happened, and the BoD demanded that the (at the time) Data Team Lead turn over said files to the BoD so we could get them hosted on CMP in the free file section to get them out to people. The basic confusion came down to 1 conversation at GenCon that said AEG would host em, another that said they wouldn't, and yet more communication behind the Boards back that came back to yes they would. This last communication was _never_ told to the BoD, so there was no way to verify, we had no knowledge of, so could do nothing about. The other issue was the data monkey that had worked on the files. the (at the time) Data Team Lead made claim that the data monkey that worked the files did not wish them release on CMP's site. There was a level of mistrust of the (at the time) Data Team Lead that could not be surmounted, the data monkey could not be reached (And how we tried), and another Board member that had been there for the conversation with the data monkey didn't think to pipe up that he'd heard this (he had also missed several meetings where this came up, real life duties and all that).

So the Board demanded that the (at the time) Data Team Lead turn over the files, that we'd post them to the CMP site so people could get to themand we would continue building new versions of the sets. If at any time the original data monkey popped back up and let his wishes be known, we would honor those wishes.

The reason that came to a head was the publisher asking frequently when the files would be released and the fact we couldn't get a hold of the original data monkey for nearly 4 months (Real life got him as well).

There's a lot more, but my fingers are tired. If people want to know more, I'd recommend wading through the posts on the main Y! PCGen boards... Or ask specific questions and I will attempt to answer them.

 

[soulcatcher]

And how is this a false statement? Given the replies to this forum, it looks to be a very true statement.

If you want to carry that weight, go ahead. If combining CMP and the PCGen BoD is so hurtful to you, you should be on the bandwagon to creating the documents that I've been asking for for a long time now.

Interesting, so by not thinking the situation is untennable, I and the rest of the BoD might as well be CMP.

once again you insult our integrity by implying that we are intentionally not working for the betterment of PCGen.

You and others have responded like you have in this forum, "There is no conflict of interest."

No, if you actually read our posts you would see that we are saying the conflict of interest is not a problem, because it's managable y the non CMP members of the board. We have also stated that CMP gains no special rights, which you basically refuse to believe, despite evidence galore. Hell, your own comment about Sun and OOo show exactly what we mean. CMP can't distribute a close pcgen, like Sun can for Open Office (called Star Office). The 5 of us non CMP people ensure it stays that way.

You guys have secret_reporter, I have ears in places too. I know what is said about me. The difference is that I'm not as sensative about it as you seem to be about my comments.

I don't take well to someone attacking my integrity, and I don't take well to your blanket statements. Call me names, say things about my mother whatever - my integrity is important to me.

Well, as stated, the Docs Silverback came forward to create the documents that I've requested. Creating a guideline on how all Third-Party Organizations interact with PCGen will clearly outline the boundries of any perceived control CMP has over the PCGen BoD. I'm still in contact with that Docs SB trying to get some action on the proposed documents and trying to get Bryan to admit that CMP is a Third Party organization and sit down with me to create the document. Nothing has happened. I'm not sure which fringe you're referring to.

great, you get a document that says the same thing that has been said over and over - that pcgen has no special relationship with CMP. The document is unenforcable as pcgen is not a legal entity, and that is the status quo already.

The fact that you seem to be continually seeking to tear down PCGen to eliminate any traces of people who work for CMP. The fact that you have demanded rights for the list monkies in pcgen that no other contributors get, nor ask for - rights that would allow any LM to essentially destroy pcgen. All a LM has to do si check in changes to every data file in the system, and then demand that removal of all their stuff, and that's it - pcgen has no data. We can't unravel that, and I think you know that. IMHO you want that power so that you can dictate terms to the rest of the community under threat of requiring us to trash all the data.

You have sought to destroy a project I care for, that is why I fight you.

Soulcatcher

 

[Mynex]

I'm working on that too. It is hard to trace anything that goes on between CMP and the PCGen BoD in this given situation. I need to fully understand how CMP works with PCGen right now and no one really knows.

The answers have been given to all questions give to us. That's all it takes. Seems people miss that point in their desire to vilify us.

This is what is the root of the conflict of interest speculations and why I want to create a formalized document to regulate that interaction. It can then be recorded and auditable. People can see the interactions between CMP and PCGen and can then say definitively that there is a conflict of interest or not.

This has only been brought up recently to do this type of thing, I'm most certainly not opposed to it, it would simply show what we've been saying all along.

Since I want to create a Third-Party organization myself, sitting down with Shane to draft this document would be a clear conflict of interest. Sitting down with Bryan and working on a document together that will regulate BOTH of our organization's interactions would be entirely more acceptible. Considering how there is conflict between Bryan and me, there would be no speculation about the two of us conspiring together.

*snort* given that line of thought, I'd be an even better choice, wouldn't I?

 

[Zub]

I don't think most PCGen users care about CMP, or the BoD. I think what they care about is the data. I think for too long we kept reading that CMP was becoming the sole source for data files from this or that publisher, while at the same time, PCGen itself had fewer sources then it did in 2.7 or whatever. I think that was the cause of the distrust. At least it is in my case. And I'm not even talking about Splat books. I remember at one point I had FFG's Guide to the Galaxy, then all of a sudden it (and many other sources) was gone. Soon, PCGen had evolved to the point where my old files no longer worked with it.

I'd like three things to happen:
1) Just start releasing data again. Let those lst files flow. I don't care if they are 10% buggy, that means that they are 90% is usable.
2) somehow create a way to manually over ride every field. This helps in case of buggy files or if I add a feat that I don't know how to properly code. If I create a feat that for example increases the attack bonus of my offhand weapon, - I ahve no idea how to code that to make it work. I'd like a way to just overide it, so that it gets printed out correctly on my sheet. I know that it might not be easy to implement, but it will help people deal with buggy list files.
3) Get the list editors working. That should be the number one priority. Nothing should be coded by hand that can't be duplicated by the list editors.
Don't release new functionality until the list editors can handle it, because that's the first thing that people like me try to use.

I used to use PCGen exclusively. I used to really love it. It used to actually *save* me time. I'd like it to become that way again. Those are my thoughts and opinions. I hope they were semi-coherant.

 

[kingpaul]

I think for too long we kept reading that CMP was becoming the sole source for data files from this or that publisher

Other than WotC's closed content books and AU by Malhavoc, what other sources are you referring to? Granted, WotC's books are a large selection, so that may be all you're referring to.