> possible wrong policy.
I do not think that there is a "policy", formal or otherwise, at work
here. Rather, I think that whatever process-related issues exist,
they are unintended, and simply an effect of normal group dynamics
that result in more support for "insider" priorities, as compared to
"outsider" priorities -- a.k.a., the well-known "NIH" ("Not Invented
Here") effect.
In any case, my only intention is to shine a light on the TWCore
development process in order to improve the end result. There is no
question in my mind that *everyone* shares the same general goal: to
continually improve the functionality, performance, and overall
usability of TiddlyWiki.
Nonetheless, from a social standpoint alone, the impression -- whether
accurate or not -- that there IS an "insider-vs-outsider" schism with
regard to TWCore development should be of some concern, and is a good
topic for discussion for the entire TiddlyWiki community.
Here's a few questions to get the conversation rolling:
* How should new TWCore features proposed and refined? e.g., online
discussions, tickets, conference calls, emails, personal
conversations, formal RFPs/RFCs (YUCK!), etc.
* What criteria are used to evaluate new features? e.g., public
demand, code complexity/risk, adaptability (plugin potential),
backward-compatibility, cross-platform compatibility, etc.
* How are release dates/priorities set?
your thoughts?
-e
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki?hl=en.
