It's useful because end users can see that functionality they are using
actually has a person(s) that is commited to its quality. As has
already been mentioned, ofbiz feels like a "developers playground".
This makes me nervous building important business processes around ofbiz.
A key factor in me choosing ofbiz for my current government client was
that the area we were using (workeffort, iCalendar) had a committer who
was very interested in the quality of those areas.
Scott Gray wrote:
On 16/02/2010, at 12:31 AM, Christopher Snow wrote:
Hi Scott,
It would be very useful for an outsider to see who is "responsible" for what.
How would it be useful?
Scott Gray wrote:
What would we achieve by cataloging the pieces of the project we feel confident
with? If it's not a serious commitment then how would it differ from what we
do right now, aside from having an extra wiki page?
Regards
Scott
HotWax Media
http://www.hotwaxmedia.com
On 16/02/2010, at 12:04 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
Or even informal roles.
For example: My employer doesn't use eCommerce, so I am not qualified to be
responsible for that. But, I will gladly take on responsibility for areas of
the project my employer uses - like Work Effort and Asset Maintenance.
I have been thinking about that lately - each contributor or committer could
list the areas they feel comfortable with overseeing. It would be strictly
voluntary - not a serious commitment or anything.
The reason I suggest it is because I recognize my own limitations - I can't
review and comment on EVERYTHING. I have a feeling other committers are in the
same situation. So, why not catalog our strengths, and assume responsibility
for pieces of the project we feel confident with - instead of (right or wrong)
feeling responsible for the whole project.
W could use the service provider Wiki page as a model - create a Wiki page
where everyone advertises what areas of the project they feel knowledgeable in.
-Adrian
