On 11/06/06, Matt Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

2) I agree that it is both important and pertinent to get the general
requirements down for the project, but I do see a need and a benefit
to having the architecture forming in the meanwhile. I see how these
things can be connected, obviously, but with a fairly flexible
architecture it can be easy to expand or change it as needed. If we
have the skeletal system in place, we can add the muscle and the skin
on as needed. [Read more of my comments below.]

Having just been away on yet /another/ training course in Agile
methodology, I'd say this is a classic disconnect of concerns. Sounds
like Conrad just want something that works, and can be available
quickly -- a rather traditional customer point-of-view. Matt, you're
talking about implementation details, which is a traditional Developer
concern, but not all that important to the Customer. You don't
disagree, you just have different roles. The real answer is "yes". Do
implement it well, but also as quickly as possible. This isn't really
a point of disagreement.

3) I'll be honest and say that I'm not a big fan of the 'Wikicosm'
part, but the Perl++ part works for me. I particiularly like simple
names. Maybe we could go with something distinctive, much like
'Joomla' is or 'Drupal', etc. Something different, and not nearly as

Well, if we can have a "blogosphere" I suppose we can also have a "wikicosm" :-)

Mainly speaking on point number 2 again, I agree that we need to be
discussing and deciding on the minimal features, but this is does not
mean that the architecture should be poorly designed. Even with a
weakly implemented yet well designed base, it would be easier to take
this minimal wiki and upgrade it into something very powerful.

I already made this argument in an earlier post, when I suggested a
requirement that the accepted solution have a modular architecture
(plug-ins, for example). I forget the exact response, but it was
something like "whatever". Again, I think Conrad is really mainly
concerned with something that works, and quick. The rest is just icing
-- correct me if I'm wrong here.

I guess what my very first recommendation (before even a name) is that
we have a flexible, well-designed archiecture, preferrably with an MVC
pattern, with RESTful-like (URL) mapping, etc. I believe that this
will be integral to the successful adoption in the community because
it allows for very expansive modification.

Yes. yes, yes, yes...

I will be looking over some other features to recommend. Wherein shall
we officially submit our recommendations? Here? And is there a
specific way to do so? (This is more of a conversation-generating

This gets to a point thats been niggling me, which is that because of
the prize/grant involved there is automatically an environment created
which does not reward general community collaboration. Okay, you're
talking about requirements there, and that is a bit different, but if
I were the sort who /was/ motivated by money I would likely not be
motivated to get less of it by sharing. So a prize would seem to
encourage a certain amount of go-it-alone-ed-ness, and also (because
of the "first done, first won" rule) it would also seem to encourage
the most minimal feature set possible. Hence there isn't any reward
for community discussions of desired features. That's probably an okay
thing if the goal is to get something done fast. Perhaps the community
will get involved after that, when it comes time to adding-on?

Somebody needs to run with this, but it's risky to think that one
could start work on a p6 wiki candidate, only to be pipped at the end
to some other wiki engine. So then would we carry on and have 2/more
on offer, or discard the work, or give the work to the guy who already
has a grand in his pocket?

Just some random thoughts there, this thread seems to have gone a bit quiet!


Reply via email to