Hi,
Phillip J. Eby wrote:
In a vacuum, it would certainly be reasonable to be wary of such
projects. However, it should also be pointed out that in my time
serving OSAF, we've successfully completed no less than four
rearchitecture projects under my guidance, including the removal of
parcel XML, the transition to "stamping as annotations", EIM-based
sharing, replacing parcel discovery with eggs, replacing the old timer
system with osaf.startup, and others.
All of these (not to mention the various greenfield architecture
projects I worked on) were completed on or ahead of schedule, with
high approval ratings for the results -- even from people who at first
thought a particular project was unfeasible, unnecessary, or just a
bad idea.
So, I think it's only fair to match your experience with two
unsuccessful projects in other environments than this one, with my
experience of 4+ successful ones in this environment.
I'm not questioning your track record and I didn't present the whole
pictures of the people involved in the failing projects either (they
also had a successful track record internally before taking over their
own major overhaul projects). I'd say that, regardless of the track
record of the people involved, management should be wary and track the
progress of a project of that magnitude correctly.
Of course, accountability is a must. I myself would like to see a
demo-capable version of Chandler on the new architecture (minus
certain features such as sharing and email) by year-end, that offers
significantly improved memory footprint, startup time, and UI
responsiveness compared to its big brother.
That is, the improvements in the product should be visible to an end
user, not just a developer. This is key for PR and funding reasons,
to answer the inevitable (and misguided) "why are you rewriting"
questions in situations where a nuanced reply won't be anywhere near
as convincing as a side-by-side comparison.
If it works, we have much to gain, and if it fails, we lose only the
time spent on the pilot by a limited group of people.
I think we're in "violent agreement" then on the tactical aspects of
starting such a project. That alone made it worth raising the point.
Cheers,
- Philippe
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
