[openbeos] Re: Tracker icons

Well put, Michael. It's emails like this that make me feel comfortable 
and confident in your skills to lead this project.
Thank you.
-Shaka
> I don't understand, after all of the times that this has been 
> explained, how 
> this could *still* not be clear.
> 
> GE was never intended to be, and never will be anything more than a 
> discussion 
> group. The *GOAL* of GE is to talk about, consider critically, and 
> recommend 
> ideas for R2. 
> 
> Why is that? Well, a lot of reasons. GE is a place for non-devs and 
> devs to get 
> together. It is seperate from the main list because there are a lot 
> of devs who 
> find that list to be too much. And there were many, many very long 
> emails, 
> email threads, etc, justifying the seperation of the two lists. GE is 
> a place 
> to talk about crazy, way out ideas that are *so* not in scope for R1. 
> 
> Another reason for GE to be talk only is that, unlike most OSS 
> projects, we 
> don't have an attitude of "if you want it, code it". Honestly, I 
> think that a 
> lot of the problem that most OSS has comes from that attitude. I have 
> met many 
> people in the community who can't code but do have good ideas. GE is 
> a way for 
> them to be involved.
> 
> Thirdly, strictly speaking, any conversation about what R2 is and is 
> not has to 
> come from and involve the people who will be writing it. As stated 
> above, I 
> think that it is a flaw to have the developers only dictating the 
> ideas. But I 
> think that it would be an equal flaw (one that I think that a lot of 
> commercial 
> companies fall into) to have the users dictate the direction. This is 
> sort of a 
> bicameral approach.
> 
> Fourthly, even *if* we were into integrating new features, I think 
> that 
> planning for them and integrating into the overall package is better 
> than 
> piecemeal; that is what bloats and overly complicates other systems. 
> XML is a 
> prime example. SVG uses it. SOAP uses it. If you are going to include 
> all three 
> of those into an OS release, it would be wise to have the SVG and 
> SOAP 
> implementations use the XML implementation, rather than the way some 
> other OS's 
> do things. The GE approach of putting everything sort of on a virtual 
> whiteboard, letting people take potshots at the ideas and coming up 
> with 
> something that is the best of everyone's ideas is generally 
> considered a 
> software best practice.
> 
> So. A focused R1 is a good thing. A place for devs and non-devs to 
> come 
> together and talk about features for the future is a good thing. I 
> don't quite 
> understand why there should be some sort of an artificial timetable 
> for 
> deciding what ideas from GE should "move up the ladder". That 
> decision is *far* 
> better left deferred until it needs to be made, when all of the ideas 
> are on 
> the table in a clear and coherent fashion. FWIW, this is how all of 
> the 
> software development companies that I have ever worked with do their 
> product 
> planning; they gather requirements and desires from customers. When 
> they have 
> everything put together and it is time to plan a release, they get 
> all of the 
> stakeholders in the room, decide what will go in and what won't. I 
> have yet to 
> see any other form of development methodology that makes ANY sense at 
> all. Yes, 
> four years or so is a long time to be in "requirements gathering". No 
> question 
> about that. But in the same way, in a corporation, you wouldn't want 
> the 
> marketing people to start coding the application, it would be crazy 
> to start 
> pulling people off of coding R1 to play on R2. There is no R2 branch 
> for just 
> that reason - R1 is the sole focus of the development team.
> 
> I am more than open to constructive criticism. If someone has a *
> better* idea, 
> they can always feel free to bring it up to me either here or 
> privately. But 
> the ideas of splitting our forces to start with R2 while R1 is in 
> progress, of 
> people other than the dev team making unilateral decisions on what 
> will be in 
> R2 or even forcing the decisions of what is good and what is not 
> before we need 
> to don't make any sense at all, to me. The first would delay both and 
> waste a 
> lot of time. The second would never be implemented. The third would 
> result in 
> poor decision being made.
> 
> I hope that this makes more sense to everyone now.
> 
> > The constant referring to GE of new ideas or concepts that more 
> > often than 
> > not don't seem to be overly complex/complicated isn't only 
> > nauseating but 
> > counter-productive. But given the previous responses to a request 
> > in change 
> > in attitude by those in command, I politely suggest the closing of 
> > the GE 
> > list. It just doesn't serve a purpose in its current incarnation, 
> > irrespective of the noble idea behind it when it was launched - 
> > unless people 
> > like expending their time on just talking about stuff without 
> > leading/going 
> > anywhere.
> > 
> > Helmar

Other related posts: