Hi Rene,
>> I have observed a few different types of approaches to OSS: >> * Haphazard “me” approach. > I think you are correct, I would say that now it is more later approach as > well. Well at least since I started working on the project (might have been > different before). Thank you very much for your comments. Yes, that is very helpful! I fall into this trap often, and I think I am not the only one, but sometimes I explain what I **aspire** a project to be, not really what it is now. I think it is crucial to explain both. We need to be able to give proper information to newcomers so they can make a correct assessment. I think what you mention makes sense and I can work with that. Perhaps we should just wait in case anybody else would also like to add something? So I would describe James as: * Currently in a state of transition (this is what James is now) * What we aspire it to be for version xxx (I am proposing v4.0) Just a crazy thought, but technically, I could even create the v4.0 of the documentation, and we could even use it almost like a specification to guide the development. Of course, the real work gets done based on JIRA issues, but the issues that get created in the first place could be matched against the v4.0 docs. As we make progress, the two different versions will resemble each other more and more (i.e. what James **is** gets closer to what we **aspire** it to be, at least for v4.0). I don’t think we need to (or ought to) set a timeline, though. There are not enough resources allocated to do that. What do you think? Cheers, =David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
