[Scooby-dev] Re: [Cosmo-dev] Scooby/Cosmo Merge approved.

[Pieter Hartsook]

+1 for folding the front-end references into Cosmo. Reducing the
number of project names helps simplify the mental model of what we're
doing and will help the branding process. Rather than creating
yet-another-name , e.g. "Cosby",  I'd vote for just calling the server
front-end and back-end, the existing server project name Cosmo (for
the time being until we get to the naming part of the branding
process).

Since we're also working on the Portal project, maybe we should just
leave all the existing Scooby pages, maillists, etc. for now until
everything gets reorganized, but conduct all _new- communitcaions
about the server front-end under the existing Cosmo rubric (...a
heading, title of a printed matter, where the data is organized and
united under one commonly related theme.
www.customresearchpapers.us/swc/pocket-encyclopedia/r.php)

Pieter

On 8/1/06, Priscilla Chung <priscilla at osafoundation.org> wrote:
> I have a few logistical questions:
>
> 1. Name of the project?
>     + Outside of the branding project Pieter is driving, this is just
> an internal project name we can refer to.
>     + There has been a suggestion of dropping the Scooby name and
> just referring the project to be named Cosmo.
>
> 2. Mailing lists?
>     + There has been talk about merging the lists. We could
> potentially place a tag in the subject line referring to [F] - Front
> end and [B] - Back end/server side conversation.
>
> 3. IRC channels?
>     + Are we going to merge the IRC channels?
>
> 4. Wiki pages?
>     + Are we planning to merge all the information on the wiki pages?
> Do we want to bother merging all the pages or the upcoming release
> pages?
>     + There will probably be further discussion about where the
> schedule, features list, road map, documentation and coding standards
> etc. is found on the wiki.
>
> 5. Merging the status meetings?
>     + Currently the meetings are back to back. Most people in the
> Cosmo meeting are attending the Scooby meeting. Is there a need to
> merge the meeting so everyone is attending and listening to both
> sides of the product? Could we possibly make the meetings more
> efficient?
>
> In moving forward with the merge, from a planning perspective, I
> think we've made the conscious decision to delay the next release–
> which is fine. I just want clarification on what other additional
> work needs to be done besides the development of the merge.
>
> Have I missed any other outstanding issues?
> -Priscilla
>
>
> On Jul 28, 2006, at 3:35 PM, John Townsend wrote:
> >
> > With that said, I think we can consider the merger approved and we
> > should move forward.
> _______________________________________________
> scooby-dev mailing list
> scooby-dev at lists.osafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scooby-dev
>