2. Getting the release out is most important. The cosmo schedule has slipped -- the 0.7 timeframe is very tight. Risking the schedule further is not a good thing. A new design introduces schedule risk, even if the implementation is the same, as a new design will likely require further discussion and decision making.
The new design looks like it's all the same content and usage as the chandler desktop design but includes collapsable sections rather than staticly sized ones.
I think this gets us out of any further discussion beyond just rubber stamping this design. We still look back to the chandler desktop design for what all the content and fields "mean", just the layout is changed slightly.
All the workflows should be the same and the detail behind what fields mean what are all the same as in chandler desktop so we totally get out of having a dozen new threads about the semantics behind each piece.
Could someone expand on what they think the addition design work is beyond what's already been done that might add schedule risk?
It's also worth noting, and mde can expand upon this if he agrees, that the possibilities for problems with different window sizes is much higher in a design that follows chandler desktop exactly may be more of a schedule risk than the perceived design work. Just a thought.
-Mikeal
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
