[openbeos-cdt] Re: CDT regrouping: why and how?

  • From: Eddy Groen <eddyspeeder@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: openbeos-cdt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:33:27 +0100

2009/11/13 Stephan Assmus <superstippi@xxxxxx>

> If the CDT has discussions like this here on this mailing list, it will
> just be
> that: Yet more nice dicussions with useful ideas, just on it's own
> dedicated mailing list. Since it's basically the same thing, not anything
> more will come of it than before.

Hear, hear! Thank you for explicating this better than I could (& thanks for
helping us along from a developer+designer point of view). This is indeed
exactly my point, but better-worded :-) This email really puts the SUPER in

> What needs to happen is that the CDT takes it one step further. (...)
> The CDT will gain credibility with the developers *only* by producing
> quality specifications, ready to be picked for implementation.

I wholly agree. What the CDT must do is take the load off of developers.
Some have remarked that to bring change, you can just put something up on
Trac, leaving the rest for the developers to sort out.

Stephan, by this proposal you have also been able to take away my worries
about the CDT having any input at all. I've seen it happening that designers
come up with ideas, which are then not adopted. But if indeed the procedure
is to put these well thought-through proposals up on Trac and getting them
implemented, then all should be fine and indeed there would be no need for
any balance of power. Thanks!

What I'd like at this point is a sample Trac entry that the CDT should from
now on use as a model to base all its Trac entries on. Can you show me one?

As for the CDT internally, we indeed have various discussions running right
now. I'm real glad and enthusiastic about the direction they are headed,
namely starting out as a divergent brainstorming and conceptualizing, and
eventually converging towards a point of agreement. But with several of
these discussions we are "just" not yet there. What can we do to make sure
we do reach this end point?

To sum up Stephan's mail and earlier discussions, here is a proposal for the
CDT procedure:
1. Find something to improve (as team or individually)
2. Come up with an initial idea / proposal
3. Discuss divergently (brainstorming, conceptualizing, prototyping)
4. Discuss convergently (reaching a point of agreement)
5. Present the idea to others outside the CDT (general mailing list,
non-tech users)
6. Evaluate the feedback from the presented idea
7. Write a Trac entry (by the assigned writer)
8. Post a Trac entry (along with the necessary attachments)
9. Evaluate the eventual implementation

For the third step (which is the stap we have basically spent the most time
on so far), I personally still would favor a "core group" (in terms of
responsibility by being active in it, NOT in terms of elitism) that
regularly meets over long-distance communication lines. I think this would
really help us towards the fourth step of reaching a proper end point, as
disagreements can (probably) be resolved quicker.


Other related posts: