> 2. As with #1 above, I wonder how the community will be involved in > the development process, what political processes will be involved in > decision making? I had assumed it would be similar to the hippy rule > we emply in Agavi, but am beginning to wonder if this is to be managed > somehow differently.
I'm confident that if we give the community a platform to express their opinion, they will do so. And we of course always may actively ask the community to give their valuable feedback or propose ideas etc. I know you don't really like the distinction between those who mainly develop the application and those who mainly use it, but in reality, there is one. Some people will be quite passive (asking questions, filing bug reports, stuff like that), and some people will actively participate by discussing things, contributing code, giving advice, etc. It will be somewhat impractical to _want_ everyone and their mother involved in every decision. But I think the Agavi way of doing this has proved to be very good, and thus I'm sure we will be able to listen to everybody who steps up and objects, proposes, agrees, argues or whatever. > 3. UML, I would hope that the use of UML is simply a means of > presenting an idea. I would object to it's use for anything beyond > that. Personally, I'd rather see ideas illustrated in test suites, but > I dont have any problem with visual diagrams too.. +1 Cheers, David _______________________________________________ agavi-dev mailing list [email protected] http://labworkz.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/agavi-dev
