[Cosmo-dev] Re: [Scooby-dev] Cosmo/Scooby Merge (Please read and comment)

[Katie Capps Parlante]

Brian Moseley wrote:
> i know that jared has some reservations about the merge and would like
> to hear what he has to say. anybody else have opinions to share? i'd
> like to bring the discussion to a close in the next few working days
> and call for a vote.

I'm in favor of this move, for the reasons that John, Brian, Ted, Matt 
and others have articulated in the thread. In particular...

Given that the project teams are small right now, I think it will help 
in reducing some inefficiencies and help the team's momentum and 
collaboration. I second Brian's point that it encourages developers to 
be familiar with all parts of the system, more eyes able to look at any 
one piece of code. (I don't think this means that everyone will be 
familiar with all of the code, or needs to be, just that it makes it 
easier for this to happen with the current team). One product to manage 
and plan for and do UI design for, one release cycle, one dev list, etc. 
look like real advantages given the current size of the teams.

This aspect could be a win independently of any architecture or code 
changes. Of course, it also enables some changes that do make sense, 
either for performance or reduction of duplicated code, as Brian has 
noted. It doesn't prevent us from keeping the pieces modular though -- 
we should expect that some developers will show up who are only 
interested in the server. No problem with that. We can make an effort to 
make sure this is understood.

I will also underscore the point that combining the projects does not 
imply abandoning standard protocols, in particular CalDAV. I think 
Mikeal has a point that separating the projects is one way of enforcing 
the use of standard protocols -- that is why the decision was made to 
have them separate in the first place. I think what the team is doing 
here is weighing the costs and the benefits, and making a judgment call 
that the benefits outweigh this particular cost, and that we can still 
hold ourselves to the goal of implementing access to the server via 
CalDAV for interoperability. I see a consistent long term vision here, 
articulated by Brian, John, Ted etc. that Cosmo will provide access to 
its data via adaptors for different protocols.

The short term priority for OSAF as an organization *is* to get end 
users of the web client and the desktop client. As others have pointed 
out, that does not have to be in conflict with a commitment to 
interoperating with other clients and doing so using standard protocols. 
A compelling app (web client and desktop) will in the long run be a 
bigger advantage to pushing standard protocols for calendaring than a 
positioning statement about how the web app and server are different 
projects.

Cheers,
Katie