- Nov 2020
I'm still calling this v1.00 as this is what will be included in the first print run.
There seems to be an artificial pressure and a false assumption that the version that gets printed and included in the box be the "magic number" 1.00.
But I think there is absolutely nothing bad or to be ashamed of to have the version number printed in the rule book be 1.47 or even 2.0. (Or, of course, you could just not print it at all.) It's just being transparent/honest about how many versions/revisions you've made. ￼
- magic values
- false assumptions
- too much importance placed on something
- focused too much on the wrong thing
- too much ceremony/bureaucracy
- artificial pressure
So I propose having the repo in place, and using it for targeted proposals where we really want feedback from early users, and hold off formalising anything more until early next year, as you said.
It looks like you just deleted our lovely crafted issue template. It was there for good reasons. Please help us solving your issue by answering the questions asked in this template. I'm closing this. Please either update the issue with the template and reopen, or open a new issue.
Ignoring official advice
@evilebottnawi Closing the issue because I removed the template looks like excessive bureaucracy.