[openbeos] Re: Tracker icons
- From: "Jimmy Shaka" <shaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2005 02:07:01 GMT
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:
