At 11:10 AM 10/10/2007 -0700, Philippe Bossut wrote:
It's not true anyway that final cost is the only criteria. For instance, if we had the whole set of numbers, we *might* choose to spend more overall (over 6 years say) and go with a path that provides more predictability or a lower burn rate.
Actually, I don't see how either of those choices would be an argument *against* my proposal.
We may also decide that the overall cost is way too high under any hypothesis and decide to drop some of the criterions.
Which is why I opened the discussion a few weeks ago with the question of which of these paths we wanted to optimize for, i.e., where do we want to be in a year?
As I pointed out then, without this question being answered we are in danger of having dueling metrics.
Specifically, I was afraid that any proposal I advanced based on one metric, would be shot down based on some other metric, followed by the next proposal being shot down using another metric, and so on ad infinitum until a decision is arrived at by default.
As I stated before, I am not married to any particular metric. It's not my job to decide where Chandler should be in a year, just to provide the best possible recommendations for how it should get done. If the metric is "nobody ever got fired for maintaining the status quo", then clearly my proposal should be taken off the table and shot. :)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
