Hi Folks,
Note that this approach puts us in competition with intranet software, CMSes, virtual meeting software, Lotus Notes, and that thing that was made by that guy before he went to Microsoft... Ray Ozzie? What was that thing he had that was a sharing platform? Groove, or something like that? Is it still around?
I think I've read stories about Groove still being popular in the military, because of its encrypted P2P bits.
I agree, focusing on a shared workspace does put us in the same space as all the things PJE mentions. Is that bad? My sense is that people get pretty excited about shared spaces, but with the exception of Groove they're all aimed at *really* large groups.
One of the very first problems we'll hit in that space is that our conflict resolution isn't fine-grained enough to support this kind of collaboration unless it's synchronous or there's just one person managing a given project.
I agree that if we're encouraging people to manage small projects as one item's text field, our text field conflict management is inadequate.
Still, I really like the general outlines of Chandler's existing triage workflow, especially as it relates to group project management. If we could prioritize oft-mentioned but never-implemented clusters, I'd be a lot more satisfied, and I think some (though certainly not all) of the impedance mismatch between Chandler's feature set and GTD practitioners desired features would go away.
Clusters might change the frequency with which detail view conflicts happened. I think conflict management for notes fields would still be an issue, but perhaps not so bad that the still-incomplete system wouldn't be useful?
Sincerely, Jeffrey _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
