Hi Steve,
A few comments on the thread you started here...
+ The general@ list in particular is a forum for discussing
administriva, project governance, and other cross project issues that
don't fit on other lists. You might not be aware that cosmo-dev@ and
chandler-dev@ lists are forums for discussing coding and architecture
issues, and the design@ list is a forum for discussing the design of the
products.
+ If I look at the alpha-beta-dogfood-preview discussion as an example,
I see that people with different roles on the project (architecture and
coding, build, release management, product management, qa, etc.)
participated in the discussion and were taken seriously. As an example,
I would hardly describe PJE as a "grunt" -- his opinion is highly
respected, he cared that we make a good decision about milestone
numbering, and he changed my mind with his arguments. (I'm one of the
dreaded "managers", PJE is an architect and a writer of code). I don't
know that we have any "silent grunts" here -- people in all roles are
pretty active in discussions and decisions on cosmo-dev@, chandler-dev@
and [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'll reiterate Mikeal's point: we try to conduct most
discussions and make decisions on public lists. This includes product
management, project management, release management, etc.
+ FYI, our first round audience extends beyond "engineers and techies".
We already have people inside OSAF using Chandler and the Cosmo server
who are not techies. Our target users are small work groups. If you are
interested in learning more about the target users, you can follow the
discussions on the design list and check out the wiki. Warning: the
information is fairly involved, we don't yet have a high level summary
intended for someone who hasn't been participating in the design
discussions.
http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2006-June/004884.html
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/OneDotZeroTargetUser
+ It is indeed important to focus on "shipping" Chandler and Cosmo.
Lets keep the conversation civil, everyone.
Cheers,
Katie
stephen white wrote:
On 02/09/2006, at 9:34 AM, Philippe Bossut wrote:
During our last IRC office hour, it was proposed that we reduce the
duration of the weekly IRC meeting to 30 minutes.
A comment that I've seen about OSA is that it's run by successful
people... so they all spend their time managing the high level details
instead of getting on with the grunt work. Too many managers, not enough
chefs, leading to what appears to be happening here - days and days of
messages about whether it's "alpha", "beta" or "dogfood".
Just call it "Piddly Wonk" or something completely and utterly
meaningless, and shove it out of the door. Success or failure isn't
going to be measured by what it's called but by what it does and how
well it achieves the objectives (if identified) that it sets out to
address. Engineers and techies are going to be your first round
audience, and we don't care about the label.
Steve.
(a grunt, not a manager)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
