jMonkeyEngine 3.0

I’ll admit right away that the title was undescriptive and slightly deceptive for the sake of gaining extra attention, so I can only hope that it has served it’s cause. Near the bottom of this post it is justified to some degree though.

The topic I’d like to address is renanse’s recently announced “Ardor3D Java (Game) Engine”. My post here could be considered my comment to his blogpost. The reason I’m posting this here is because a forum greatly encourages open and perpetual discussion, much more so than comments to a blogpost.

renanse wrote:
I have truly enjoyed the nearly five years I've spent developing the jMonkeyEngine, particularly the experiences of discovery, collaboration, community and creativity. And so in a nutshell, I would have no qualms about doing it all over again in some fashion.
So, just to make sure we stay on track here, you love programming both as a hobby and as a profession. For years you have enjoyed developing a, I will dare say revolutionary, Java 3D Engine known as jMonkeyEngine. What you want now is to do just that, just under a new name and a fresh start. All's good so far?
renanse wrote:
Official developer activity has been incredibly low. Also, there is no clear, cohesive future direction for the technology.
And who is to blame for this? No, I won't point any fingers, rather I'll say this, and mean it: Noone. Scarce as my knowledge might be about this project, I think it's quite clear that you have carried an enormous load of responsibility on your back these past five years. Noone is to blame, because noone stepped up to take on the responsibility of a project manager who could have made an effort to compile and streamline the goals, aspirations and needs of jME's developers and fans, and turn all of this into a precise set of (SMART) goals, a roadmap; a purpose.
renanse wrote:
I am concerned about the viability of current technology for future needs.
I don't get it, I really don't. What was the purpose of the 2.0 overhaul if not to prepare jME for future needs? Still, your answer to that question is rendered insignificant now that you're moving on to yet another (basically) re-start from scratch. I trust that you know what's best for your own engine, 'nuff said about that. Forward is the way to go.
renanse wrote:
Branding might sound trivial, but it has been hard to get the technology in the door at some companies precisely because the name does not sound serious enough (...)
So jMonkeyEngine 2.0 will now be known as CoolName3D, all done. If this has been such a problem to you and others, why haven't this been discussed earlier? Rebranding is easy. All it takes is following through all the way, embracing the change as nothing but an improvement for the better.
renanse wrote:
Add to this the visible lack of a coherent forward direction, license questions (who is this "jMonkeyEngine" the copyright is attributed to, etc.) and so forth and you end up with a lot of work to assure potential customers that this is the technology they should bet on.
So why not change this internally? Attack the problem at its root and fix it! If it's professionalism you miss, enforce it.
renanse wrote:
The recent shift to give check-in rights to anyone who asks, (a fine idea, given #2) unfortunately only amplifies the issues here, particularly regarding coherent forward direction.
Then obviously this decision should have been discussed more openly and over a longer period of time to begin with, rather than being a kind of bail-out solution to deal with decreasing core-developer contribution.
renanse wrote:
Points 1-3 could be possibly solved within jME itself, but I think this point would be a lot more difficult to crack in the current structure. A new project would have a second chance to consider such issues.
So now we're closing in on the root of the issue I see. So maybe a complete overhaul is needed. If so, do that then, just don't leave jMonkeyEngine hanging like an abandoned project! If you need to start from scratch, do it, just don't be so quick to kick the massive community- and developer-support you've built up these past years off the wagon as soon as you start moving towards new territory.
renanse wrote:
In summary, the hobby-turned-project never seemed to be able to get fully onto the path of an open source project. I am certainly as guilty as anyone for jME's past direction, but given that past I am not sure the project could be repositioned without a large political upheaval - one that I am not willing to fight through personally. A new engine could start with these principles and expectations on day one.
Basically, what you're saying here is that what jME is missing is active and focused management.

Starting anew can sound very tempting because it relieves you of every minor-to-big problem about jMonkeyEngine that has gradually bottled up ever since the project first started. Without focused management, "Ardor3D" too will end up the same as jME eventually. With proper management, not only would "Ardor3D" remain much less complicated from the start, but the jMonkeyEngine developers and community could be maintained and renewed.
renanse wrote:
As a final note of clarity, I wish only the best for the future of jMonkeyEngine...
I'm sure you want only the best for jME, but your best wishes are really in vain, overshadowed by your departure and the inevitable disassembly of the core jME team along with it. With you dropping your active support for jME along with highly respected developers like MrCoder talking about abdicating from his developer-status, clearly not that interested in jME-development any longer, you are leaving behind you a nasty burn mark that might never go away.

I don't know if you really understand what these recent changes in development make the rest of us feel. I for one feel like our game is suddenly being developed on abandonware. Even though I know that's not true, that's what it feels like, and that matters.

The founders and old core members of jME are jME, so what is jME now that you will no longer be the people behind it?

What to do?

Don't split this community in two. You know that is going to happen if you make this "Ardor3D" a completely seperate project from jME. I could describe an example scenario, but I imagine that would be easy enough to do on your own. "Ardor3D" would become the new "next", while jME would remain the more mature and well known engine of the two for quite some time => You just got yourself a split community.

Instead, I recommend the following:

#1 - Re-assemble your team

You're doing this already with "Ardor3D", just without being directly in touch with the community that you yourself helped build from scratch. There might be complications in terms of server and domain ownership, third-party projects, loss of credits, you name it. No biggy, just deal with it, for the sake of your community.

  • Make sure your website has got a proper teamlist where every active core member is accounted for in necessary detail (Nickname + Real name, Time of joining, main responsibility).

  • Define roles in a proper manner. Make it very clear who is supposed to be doing what. Delegate responsibility.

  • Expand team-member. Contributors could have the honour of being part of your team even if they're not actively submitting patches or whatnot. What about roles like Doc Writer and Support Specialist?

Whether or not you should have a defined hierarchy is up to you, but I would definately recommend it. A group of "department leaders", "heads of staff" or whatever you'd like to call them will always come in handy when there's a decision to be made that can't easily be settled through a consensus among several individuals. The leaders are the ones who carry the extra load, knowing the project inside out, usually knowing what's best for the project. You might be against a hierarchy, but the simple fact is that some people always stand out as the more influential and respected than others, and their words will weigh heavy, more so than others'.

With that in mind, I see no harm in making clear statements of who's really in charge at the end of the day.

#2 - Add a Project Manager to your team

A 3D engine is a major endeavour, and you obviously have plans to expand your team and establish a community surrounding this new engine of yours. If you hope to use words like "smooth", "without a hitch" and "positive growth" when describing your team and community, you will, without any shred of doubt, need an individual who can dedicate his time solely to the act of project & community management. Most likely you would need more than just one soon enough, but that shouldn't be too hard to deal with as long as you got the one essential guy for starters. In other words, this member of your team would not be doing any programming at all; he wouldn't even have to understand it very well, as all you'd really need of him would be his excellent administrative skills.

I'll gladly apply for the position myself, but I'm sure there's got to be someone among the hundreds, maybe thousands, of people out there who know so much better than me what jME is all about, as a 3D engine, a (open source) project, and a community. Just don't expect you'll be able to manage this project "on the side", or have everyone "do their part". It just doesn't work that way. The project manager is equally important as the architect.

#3 - New domain and label

You wanted a new label, so go get it, just don't abandon your loyal supporters in the progress. I would suggest that you keep the forum, while the website itself should be considered for partial or complete remake. Yes, again. Why? Because even though it might look more appealing with an improved first-impression now, I don't see all that many improvements in terms of more elaborate wiki-pages, improved navigation and internal restructure.

So what would "Ardor3D" really be? That's simple:
"We're making a next-generation Java 3D Engine, codenamed jMonkeyEngine 3.0".
=> Discussion, development and documentation could go on as usual. A new section in the (ore a whole new-) wiki would be created, dedicated to the remade 3.0-line. Once the new engine is worth releasing to the public, the change of domain and label (and possibly licensing???) would concurrently follow.

#4 - Drop 1.0 support, round off 2.0, initiate 3.0



It's time to put an end to the 1.0-line of jME. 2.0 was a push for the better, so why dwell on it any further? 1.0 is old now, and will rapidly seem a whole lot older, even deprecated when "remakes from scratch" such as "Ardor3D" starts appearing. The 1.0-line should become just another part of jMonkeyEngine's history, not something developers should bother having a look at for reasons beyond curiosity.


Stop giving 1.0-related support on your forum. Make it very clear that the 1.0-line is now discontinued and feature-frozen. Projects depending on 1.0's code should be strongly encouraged to port over to 2.0. Should they however wish to keep using 1.0 they can't be stopped. Maybe there's a 1.0 enthusiast out there who would be willing to keep monitoring and maintaining the 1.0-line, but if not, I'd suggest you just leave it there everyone to use it as-is, without the possibility of submitting changes to the code. The less superfluous management-assignments the better.


1.0's documentation should be compiled and put into some archive-like section of your wiki, or removed entirely, leaving a downloadable .txt-file or something where all the old documentation is stored.
Add an (hidden) archive to your forum. Move all 1.0-related threads in there to avoid revival of old and irrelevant topics.



The 2.0 version of jME however is another story. As long as you leave it in the hands of the community, you don't really have to develop it any further, but you should keep up your support for it. The important part is that you stop downplaying 2.0's potential as an actual engine to-date and the future ahead of it, as I would easily argue that this is something you have indeed been doing through some of your recent commentaries.

jME 2.0 needs more appraisal. jME's improvements from 1.0 to 2.0 are poorly explained at best. I'm having a hard time finding the page that tells me "this is why 2.0 is so much better, and deserves a jump from 1.0 to 2.0 in versioning" and "this is why you should port your code to be compatible with 2.0's improvements, and continue development of your project from there".


The development of jME 2.0 should take place in its own 2.0 category, seperate from any 3.0 advancements. In my opinion the suggestion-board should be for the 3.0-line only, seeing as whatever changes are commited to the 2.0-line would be those of projects who originally made these changes for their own needs, but realized that their changes proved to be useful overall in a general context.


Seeing as 2.0 is where jMonkeyEngine is currently at, 2.0 would compose the "forefront documentation" so to speak. 2.0's documentation should still be kept seperated as strictly 2.0 documentation however, allowing 3.0 documentation to be created on the side. Whatever documentation that turns out to be identical for the two should still remain as cloned pages, and not one shared page, enforcing complete seperation. More general pages (e.g. resource links) should of course be made unreliant of either version, but the content within should be clearly labeled if 2.0/3.0 compatibility is relevant.



For 3.0, explain every change that surrounds it. 3.0 would represent more than just a new beginning in terms of code, which is basically what 2.0 was all about if I understood correctly. 3.0 would be a new project alltogether, re-assembling the core team, re-labeling, re-writing of the code with the help of new new principles and standards in mind...

"Ardor3D" is not just the future of Java 3D engines, but jMonkeyEngine's future => The next step.


So clearly, the 3.0-line would be what every core developer of soon-to-be re-labeled jMonkeyEngine is now working on. The 1.0 line is discontinued, and the 2.0 line is left in the hands of the community for continuous maintainance for as long as they are willing.


3.0's documentation would be started from scratch. If a new type of documentation is desired, e.g. a new type of wiki or a different tool alltogether, then that could be done.

I think a little reading between the lines is in order.

I sincerely doubt that it's lack of insight in to the problems of JME or solutions to those problems that Renase has decided to move on. Quite the reverse. But in the end, the enthusiasm of people like Renase and MrCoder is to the benefit of 3D graphics in Java. If in their considered opinion, a new project is the way forward, then that is for the best.

Diversity is a good thing.

What’s the point of this thread? Blaming renanse for what he is doing? Or is it the future of the jMonkeyEngine?

I can fully understand the concerns of renanse. Sometimes it’s easier to get rid of old habits, sure, but is this drastic move really necessary? I doubt it.

The problems, that led to this decision, like the branding, have never been adressed anywhere. Or did i miss some important post here?

So the real problem of this project is the lack of openess. We all know the main contributors very well, because they have always been very supportive in this forum. But do we know who decides about what comes into the engine?

Currently the jME is still a hobbiest project, but already used for professional purposes. What we need is more professionalism!

The new contribution policy is a good step in the right direction. But what about planning of features, release schedules and all that. Still here we need some improvement.

So i agree with Sadr, that we are in need of some managment. I would take a look at the development process of the eclipse project, there we can learn a lot.

And talking about eclipse, i would also support the idea of jME beeing an OSGi bundle.

First of all to make it clear, i don't blame anyone for anything.

In my view, what happened is this:

  1. jME 2.0 was announced, some design decisions were made, but those were not discussed publicly
  2. jME 1.0 was rewritten to jME 2.0, but design changes adopted were not so revolutionary they could potentially be
  3. It was announced, that jME 2.0 is not in finished state, and big refactoring will happen
  4. Everyone embraced jME 2.0 as is, and rewritten their applications to jME 2.0 as fast as possible, carving in stone the jME 2.0 state
  5. There cannot be a big refactoring of jME 2.0 any more since it took the place of jME 1.0 as the production branch

    I wanted (still want) to contribute to jME, but i'm not the one to make the decisions, or even to initiate the decision making process. And i cant contribute code now which for example changes the Geometry or LWJGLRenderer classes, because the jME 2.0 is in production state and not experimental or development. If we were back in january, and the jME 2.0 design process would just start out publicly, everyone could present their proposed changes, and there could be a vote for accepting or rejecting the changes, but that didn't happen.

    I highly appreciate the decision to move the development to Ardor3D, since rewriting the engine is needed. But if you run it as open-source project, then please involve the community in the design from the start.

No open source project should rely on just one or two people… so now we'll see if this is a strong enough project to continue

Mojo already opened up the developer process… to encourage more community involvement. There's a first serious attempt at getting some good moderation going in the forums (some of the "devs" like myself have been more forum moderators than devs lately anyway, due to time constraints)

As for Ardor3D, I don't see why it could not be a jME 3.0 in the future or have an influence on that… though it will depend on the source code license and the development model they choose. It'll also be intresting to see which parts of the source they'll reuse. (If there's one thing I don't get about renanse's post it's stuff about copyright concerns… I hardly doubt there's any problems with the BSD license… but maybe he was talking about contributing back to open source (which was in fact a big problem at NCSoft apperently))

Alric said:
(...)in the end, the enthusiasm of people like Renase and MrCoder is to the benefit of 3D graphics in Java. If in their considered opinion, a new project is the way forward, then that is for the best.

Diversity is a good thing.
Like I said, I don't have any reason to doubt their decision in dropping the ball on 2.0 and instead going for a slightly different approach starting from the ground up. It's how they're going about this change in development I oppose, as I think it could be done quite differently, with much smoother transitions.

Diversity can be a good thing, but not when it involves splitting a very active and growing community in two by offering what is basically the next version of the currently supported software, just in a whole new development scene.

Vardamir said:

What's the point of this thread? Blaming renanse for what he is doing? Or is it the future of the jMonkeyEngine?
By no means is my post about blaming renanse for any recent negative turns in jME development or anything of the sort. Yes, it is largely about the future of jMonkeyEngine. More so though, it is about the community of the jMonkeyEngine, which is what I fear is being ignored in the recent decisions made.

vear said:

In my view, what happened is this:(...)
Thank you for that one vear, it cleared up quite a few confusions of mine.
vear wrote:
I highly appreciate the decision to move the development to Ardor3D, since rewriting the engine is needed. But if you run it as open-source project, then please involve the community in the design from the start.
llama wrote:
Mojo already opened up the developer process.. to encourage more community involvement. There's a first serious attempt at getting some good moderation going in the forums (some of the "devs" like myself have been more forum moderators than devs lately anyway, due to time constraints)
Yep, I recognize this progress and I think they are all healthy steps, even though methods like the contribution policy might need some tweaking (and some prior discussion before enforcing it would've probably been beneficial, but it's always important to just finally put things in action as long as they can be tweaked as you go along).
llama wrote:
(...) maybe he was talking about contributing back to open source (which was in fact a big problem at NCSoft apperently))
Yes I think this for one is an especially important progress. I thought NCSoft were actually quite cooperative as far as open source goes, but maybe I was wrong. If that was the case, and NCSoft actually hindered some of jME's progress as an open source project, then having it moved under Ardon's wings would be a very healthy step. I guess that's partially what's happening, just that jME doesn't seem to be moving, it's left behind...

Before we start talking about jME 3.0, what is the current state of jME 2.0?

Is it done? I guess it must be, because it is used already in "production".

So we should not talk about 3.0 but 2.1. We're in need of a development process. Let's define one (i'd suggest to copy one  ;))

Lots of the stuff that Sadr said made good sense. 1.0 should be made obsolete, as people are regularly told it is obsolete anyways. WiKi and documentation should be completely cleaned up and re-organized probably to reflect that. etc etc. The main thing is we should not dwell on losing people like Renanse and MrCoder and move forward, trying to reorganize ourselves to this new reality…

What I am also wondering about is how much of the stuff intended for 2.0 is actually implemented already… There is the original list in this thread, but is there more semi-finished stuff? And how much is ‘almost there’ - parts would be easy to add/implement, considering the changes made to 2.0 compared to 1.0. If there exists some sort of hidden road-map that most of the community has not seen yet etc.

Even though you have left Renanse, would you have any advice for the community at this point? Especially on the technical side? What to do next and how to move forward? Perhaps it is even easier to offer advice now that you know you would not have to code it? :wink:

We will have a 3.0 someday. We have put a lot of work in jME and a switch to another engine would be a huge task. Although we already were thinking about an abstraction layer for the engine in MW3D, just in case we need to support another one. But that would mean it would be a generalized engine, made only of interfaces. If anyone is interested in creating such a thing (full OSGi of course), leave me a note :wink:

Just for me to summarize:

  • jME will be continued with an improved development process
  • Ardor3D will be a new engine, created by former jME developers

Wow, it's kind of sad Sadr that you seem to equate the future of jME to one person.  If that's been the case all along then jME was destined to fail from the beginning, it was just a matter of time.  I hold no grudge against Renanse for going a different direction.

In fact, this may be a very positive thing for jME.  To the same extent that Xith3D is good to help keep jME on task, yet another 3D engine (particularly open-source) will be great to help push us forward.  The ultimate goal is forwarding Java game development and I personally think this is a positive step.  Whether jME lives forever or Ardor3D does matters much less than the feasibility of game development in Java to me.

Renanse, I look forward in seeing some code. :slight_smile:

darkfrog said:

Wow, it's kind of sad Sadr that you seem to equate the future of jME to one person.  If that's been the case all along then jME was destined to fail from the beginning, it was just a matter of time.  I hold no grudge against Renanse for going a different direction.

Think sadr has a point though, llama = too busy, irisor = physics, darkfrog = gamestates
No bugs have yet been fixed for over a month and no developers coming forward...

We are doomed

Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomed I tell you! NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooo

(nevermind that Mojo just decide to open up the process and give people the chance to check in their own fixes, that more and more people are using jME already without even needing any bug fixes, etc etc etc)

Point being, the problem is JME's, not Renase's. Any individual is entitled to make their own decisions about the way forward, unless they are under contract.

I think that the underlying issue is precisely with the JME community. Don't get me wrong I think it is great and certainly one of the things that brought me from being a long time lurker around Java 3D engines to an active user. But this community has strengths and weaknesses. It is very good at giving friendly, constructive support to new users. It is good at allowing people to dream up an idea and start to work on it.

It does not seem to be strong when it comes to producing expert users - accomplished programmers who have learned the guts of the engine, and have the time and willingness to contribute back. Of course there are an honourable few, but where are the prospective new developers?

Without doubt, there are plenty of people, who would like to contribute back to the project to ensure its long term health. But I think it is clear that in most cases, we have to hold our hands up and say, don't have the knowledge. This is a weakness in the community. You can't manage your way around this. If the expert knowledge, ability, and time isn't there to do the work, the work won't get done no matter how well planned it is. As far as I can see this is the major problem facing JME right now.

If Renase can put together a good group to develop a new engine, and especially if as he hinted he can attract commercial interest from the start then that to me is good for the big picture. If JME can't continue without him, then as Darkfrog said, it has been living on borrowed time anyway. Let's hope that both projects can continue and flourish.

From my own point of view, I have always looked at it this way - can the engine meet my requirements as it is now? If not, it is not suitable. It was suitable, so it still is. If I need a feature desperately enough, I can go in, get familiar with the relevant code, and add it myself. Perhaps if we all have that simulus then more of us will, in time, gain the knowledge to move the engine forward.

Which brings me back to my original point. Take a good look at the community and let's see if it is really as strong as we like to believe. Will people jump ship and condemn the project because the prospect of Renase/MrCoder developing things for us has receded? Or will we step up and do some meaningful work ourselves? I hope for and expect the latter.

OK maybe I am saying something weird here… but let's see if anyone can follow my reasoning.

Even if from today on no major new features will be put into jME, and it'll be just bug fixes and such things… will that make jME a bad project, or a bad community?

OK, it'll be hard to make AAA style games without putting a lot more effort into the engine… but then again, that'd still be a small effort compared to all the other work you'd have to do.

That's not saying jME couldn't be improved, or even taken to the level where these "A" games could be made, but that will require a whole new fresh approach anyway. But if noone is willing to put in that energy, it won't mean jME has "failed"… in fact for it's succes -if you define success by many succesful projects using the engine-, better documentation, more tutorials, more user code (like RTS handler on the forum), and better 3rd party frameworks (like terrain) and tools (like monkeyworld) are probably more important. (edit: well I guess keeping the forum managable and a good proces for encouraging fixes and such is important too, and a start has been made there as well).

You are absolutely right. Looking at the current developments, i'm involved in, it's all going in the right direction. We have already a stable foundation with the engine. When we all work together, we'll have a reference implementation someday.

I agree with darkfrog, if the project fails, because one or two developers leave, then it failed from the beginning, but that's not the case here.

I can only speak for myself, and i'll stick with the jME for now :wink:

I'll ask a more constructive question. What do i need to do to get my code into jME 2.1?

Should i mail the code to the devs, upload it to a google code repo, write documentation and explanations on the forum about it? To reiterate, i'm talking about changes that affect several (lots of) classes, so patching it into jME 2.0 is not possible.

@Darkfrog: I agree; if Renanse was what was carrying this project all along, then jME failed there and then. So the simple fact of the matter is: Was he?

Right now my first impression is that he was, because I don't see anyone taking the initiative and saying "here's what we're gonna do now". Every project needs one or more pushers in order to get it over the top when it's had a trip downhill.

@theprism: I wouldn't say doomed, but at a stand-still, absolutely.

Like is being said, jME is still being developed and stabilized in small bits and pieces, and give whoever says it isn't a success a good smacking. However without one or more developers with excellent oversight of the entire project and a will to use and process that oversight in order to guide others and provide the project with some decent direction, jME is stuck in its track as far as further development goes.

On the bright side, jME doesn't really have to be developed any further. At its current state it already provides an excellent framework for most simple 3D games as long as there's a programmer involved to add the missing pieces here and there. Right now jME doesn't need to be brought on to the next level, and there's a chance it might never have to. Projects like Radakan need jME 2.0 as-is, not some yet-again-done-from-scracth next-gen gamble.

What I'm saying is that I'm perfectly comfortable with where jME is right now as far as the code goes, but some serious work is needed elsewhere, most of which llama already pointed out. jME can probabably go on carried on the shoulders of the community for a while longer, but eventually I believe it it'll take one or more people who are able to lead in order to keep jME on the right path, as it's just a matter of time before something goes all bloated and cluttered when there's noone around to set the standards.

vear said:

I'll ask a more constructive question. What do i need to do to get my code into jME 2.1?
I think that should be kept outside of this discussion, posted in a new thread, seeing as your question is hardly on-topic.
Sadr said:
...because I don't see anyone taking the initiative and saying "here's what we're gonna do now"...

That's because we're already doing it...Renanse had pretty much already left jME, this doesn't bring anything new to us even if it is shocking news to you. Renanse is a great developer and has done a lot for jME but him leaving doesn't really change anything. We're changing our process a bit to compensate for the lack of time developers have had recently, but this isn't a "oh no, be afraid for jME" kind of things, it's just compensation to make up for a point that is currently lacking.

Is there something big you're expecting us to say in response to this? jME is growing in spite of the lack of time the main developers have recently and I believe it will continue to grow and work past the problems we've had.

Just hold on and don't panic...this isn't the state of crisis you seem to think it should be.
Sadr said:

I think that should be kept outside of this discussion, posted in a new thread, seeing as your question is hardly on-topic.

You are right, my question has nothing to do with the direction this thread is going.

I'll say it differently: lets move on. Instead of evaluating jME as just a name, lets evaluate it from the functional standpoint. What does it need, what needs to be fixed, changed. Will there be a new development version? How its gonna be structured? Who is knowing which part of jME, and can/want to improve that part? It would be more constructive. Renanse is the know-it-all of the engine, MrCoder is the guru of jME features. They cannot be replaced by single persons, but surely their work can be replaced by work of more people.

Who is managing the project? I'm sure Mojo is standing in the background, and watching over the project, but doesnt take part in operative decisions. We have the developers, let they form a feature board, and decide on, and manage the development, review code, just as everyone else using the engine should review code. If the project needs a spokesman instead of Renanse, i would nominate Vardamir to that position.