Thanks Axel, but I WILL NEVER do percentage bars for reporting the project status. Percentage bars are a complete lie, frankly. Unless you can sub-divide the work into at least 100 equal units and measure the progress ( reasonably accurately) from one sub-division to the next, then the percentage reported is bogus. Of course, this wouldn't alarm anyone because bogus percentage bars are rampant in the software industry. I'll grant you that the status tags are not perfect (anything but). And yes, they are vague. But guess what, so is the actual progress. Nothing could be more vague than the status of currently progessing software. How long will it take to complete a particular component? No one knows. Even if it is 90% complete, how long will the remaining 10% take? Quite often, the last "supposed" 10% takes longer than the initial 90% reported. Frankly, *any* designation that we give for a current status is a guess (hopefully an educated one). Of course, if you have a suggestion for a better way, feel free to propose it. If I can apply it to all the teams, then I will implement it. But keep in mind, I will not impose pseudo-accuracy where it doesn't exist merely to give people a "fuzzy" feeling about the progress. >Hi there, > >I really like the OpenBeOS website as a whole (thanks Daniel!), I am >quite unhappy with the team status overview. > >I think that the differentiation between alpha-beta-stable doesn't make >much sense for the project. E.g. the interface kit team might have the >application kit classes finalized and stable - how would you categorize >them then? >Or with the BFS: even when it will have full write capabilities, I >would still consider it as alpha quality software for some time. > >We don't have to be super-precise (like the AROS folks), but I would >like simple percent bars much more (and IMO they would match reality a >lot better). We could have colors or extra marker for how mature the >component is yet, or a bug counter on the side... :-) > >Adios... > Axel.