Spun off from http://n2.nabble.com/-tp3933215p4430348.html Chandler project future
Fritz Meissner wrote: > > … I am very much hoping that Chandler makes the jump successfully, but I > think it will take a while to get running on the new basis. In the > meantime, I'd love to have some communication from anybody who is still > working on it … > <http://chandlerproject.org/script/getIrcTranscript.cgi?messagesOnly=true&channel=chandler&date=20100112> and <http://chandlerproject.org/script/getIrcTranscript.cgi?messagesOnly=true&channel=chandler&date=20100113> show work on Chandler Desktop 1.x and Chandler Hub respectively, plus discussion of things such as: * architecture * learning curves for developers * wxpython hacking skills * reimplementation * paid developers. Highlights (I encourage people to browse the logs, for other points of interest): > chandler-dev mailing list is the official forum for contacting devs. > i'm mulling how i can help coordinate or whatever. the lack of > available devs is an issue/blocker > The "developers" area of the wiki didn't get rewritten properly > before the big crunch, so some interesting page aren't linked in. > 1) the #1 best use of funds would be intelligent combining with a > community effort > 2) wouldn't it be awesome if like osaf paid for docs and you paid > for devs to use those docs > 3) osaf board has been at a phase for a while of trying to figure > out the best use of funds we do have, in particular since it's not > been as easy as just paying an existing dev to hack in some new > features. A side note, for anyone marvelling at the number of open issues in OSAF Bugzilla: most of the ones added by me may become negligible (wontfix), subject to changes in architecture/implementation. ---- For a moment, looking outside Chandler/OSAF, at two other well-known open source projects: 1. Recently in irc://irc.mozilla.org/#mozilla irc://irc.mozilla.org/#mozilla : > We will be naming the Sunbird release 1.0b1 … no Sunbird 1.0a1. > After that there will be no further Sunbird release, see > <http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/calendar/2009/02/calendar_project_at_a_critical.html> 2. The Plone 4 architecture visualised at <http://dist.martinaspeli.net/Plone%204%20architecture%20v0.1.pdf> is no less complex than the Cosmo architecture at <http://chandlerproject.org/Projects/CosmoArchitecture>. As I see things: a) a community that's massive, or massively interested, does not always equate to ongoing development of a respected product; and b) complexity of architecture need not deter a keen/vibrant community. (That's a vast over-simplification … I suppose the point I'm making is, people shouldn't over-focus on quietness in IRC or wikis or blogs or lists ;) Bringing in a point from the chat: > desktop architecture-wise, the current architecture was designed > when the mandate from Mitch was "build me something we can use to > build an all-singing desktop pim of the future". So it's a complex > architecture, envisioned to solve problems we don't even have Similar things could be said about aspects of the architectural diagram for Plone 4. In any situation: having a vision -- however nebulous -- of 'space' for future development is a very good thing … -- View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Chandler-activities-architecture-wxpython-hacking-skills-reimplementation-funding-developers-etc-tp4430439p4430439.html Sent from the chandler-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
