Brian Lloyd wrote:
> When we first opened the fishbowl, it was with the certainty that we
> wouldn't get it right immediately. That's why we went with the
> intentially low-tech approach of a pile of Wikis. That first step
> actually worked pretty well for a while until we hit
> critical-Wiki-mass and there were suddenly too many proposals /
> projects to follow easily. So please don't think that we are
> somehow attached to the current fishbowl implementation as some
> sort of be-all-end-all.
> When we first put it in place, we were minimal with the fishbowl,
> applying Jim's second law of engineering ("You can't solve a
> problem until you know the answer".) Now I think we a lot more
> about the answer:
This bears repeating: the fishbowl was _never_ intended to be thought of
as a tool. Rather, it should be thought of as an approach, methodology,
or culture. You can rip out the Wiki and replace it with the Collector
or Bugzilla, and you'd still have the fishbowl.
Months ago we reached critical-Wiki-mass. However, we've now reached
the point where some people are volunteering to do something about it.
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -