Re: [Orgmode] Re: org mode vs basecamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm this idea just hit me : How about using ICS files ? Yes, you can digg its specs here: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt Then you'll see things like: ORGANIZER:MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ATTENDEE:MAILTO:[EMAIL PROTECTED] which might be added to Org[1] so that an .org file can be exported in .ics and so that this .ics resource can be useful as a shared resource for collaboration. You can already use it like this (i do), but maybe some other keywords (like the two above) would be nice to have. I am not too familiar with them but I think they pretty much do what I need !? But the .ics solution still requires that you answer this question: who is able to edit the .org source file(s)? Notes: [1] I'm not sure this as to be native in Org. Maybe an option saying what property of en entry should be exported to a .ics keyword is needed at some point. -- Bastien ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: org mode vs basecamp
Bastien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: which might be added to Org[1] so that an .org file can be exported in .ics and so that this .ics resource can be useful as a shared resource for collaboration. You can already use it like this (i do), but maybe some other keywords (like the two above) would be nice to have. I think we can allready export to ics ! I remember doing it. In the agenda view. I am not too familiar with them but I think they pretty much do what I need !? But the .ics solution still requires that you answer this question: who is able to edit the .org source file(s)? Notes: [1] I'm not sure this as to be native in Org. Maybe an option saying what property of en entry should be exported to a .ics keyword is needed at some point. Maybe scan todo.ics at start time ? to see if anything was added. An ics file could also be populated by either a custom app or google calendar ir any other app that understands ics. ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: org mode vs basecamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bastien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: which might be added to Org[1] so that an .org file can be exported in .ics and so that this .ics resource can be useful as a shared resource for collaboration. You can already use it like this (i do), but maybe some other keywords (like the two above) would be nice to have. I think we can allready export to ics ! I remember doing it. In the agenda view. Sorry I didn't express myself very well. Of course Org already know how to export an .org file to .ics. My point was: if you want to use the ouput .ics file as a basis for collaboration then you might want that Org export keywords like ATTENDEE in the .ics file. As I added in the footnote, I think the set of properties that Org will export for each iCal entry should be customizable, because people might have different properties for the same .ics keywords, or might want to skip keywords that are not relevant to their use of the .ics file. [1] I'm not sure this as to be native in Org. Maybe an option saying what property of en entry should be exported to a .ics keyword is needed at some point. Maybe scan todo.ics at start time ? to see if anything was added. No, this is not what I mean. I was saying that the set of keywords (those necessary to use the .ics file as a basis for collaboration) should not be rigid, if such keywords are to be implemented someday. I was not speaking about something that already exists. But maybe what i said will be clearer if you try to use the .ics file for collaboration. Don't forget to make a tutorial of how successful you were in doing this :) -- Bastien ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
[Orgmode] Re: org mode vs basecamp
Bastien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 3. The third idea is to let a web interface directly operate changes on underlying Org files. I think this is achievable: Org files are text, but with a reasonable set of conventions to format them we could edit them through another tool. I don't think such a tool exist right now, but that would actually be fun. I think this what I had in mind, so an emacs addict like me can work with other people without them having to learn emacs/org. So a web interface to this would ROCK ! The basecamp guys did a pretty good job, an you can see some videos on their website (don't know if this is doable with org-mode). Here is a cool web app that does this: www.basecamphq.com What PM/collaborative features do you have in this that you would like to see in Org? Ok, here it goes: Things org-mode allready has: 1. TODO's 2. Deadlines 3. Manage different projects with ease. Things that are not there (or are not obvious): 1. Collaboration 2. Comments (blog style) 3. Attachments (various projects need different files) 4. Views (client view / company view) 5. Assignment ( this task is for NEO ) 6. (feel free to add your thoughts here) :D Cheers, Cezar ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
Re: [Orgmode] Re: org mode vs basecamp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I think this what I had in mind, so an emacs addict like me can work with other people without them having to learn emacs/org. So a web interface to this would ROCK ! I think the easiest way would be to have a database standing between the Org file(s) and the web interface. Like this, you would be able to edit project either directly from the Org files or through the web interface, the database being responsible to keep things synchronized. But this is a lot of work... and i'm not sure .org files can really breath and live long outside Emacs. The basecamp guys did a pretty good job, an you can see some videos on their website (don't know if this is doable with org-mode). Before we go further into this discussion, let me raise again a concern that many in this list expressed before me: Org should stick to the Unix coding principle, i.e. « do one thing and do it well. » Org-mode handles to-do lists, and it does it well. There is no need to make Org a full-fledged project management system; but if such a system is able to interact (edit/store) in some way with Org's file format, then it's worth to explore this way. Things that are not there (or are not obvious): 1. Collaboration If you share a file with other people, you can assign a task to someone by adding a :Owner: property. 2. Comments (blog style) To me the content of an entry looks like comments. 3. Attachments (various projects need different files) Well, you can do this with links. 4. Views (client view / company view) Aren't sparse-tree/agenda views enough? 5. Assignment ( this task is for NEO ) See my suggestion above. 6. (feel free to add your thoughts here) :D I think the whole issue is not How to make Org a collaborative tool for project management but rather: Is it worth trying to implement a web application that uses Org format for storing/exchanging information? And I don't have any answer to that! -- Bastien ___ Emacs-orgmode mailing list Remember: use `Reply All' to send replies to the list. Emacs-orgmode@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-orgmode
