[Design] Chandler as a Managed Workspace

[Jeffrey Harris]

Hi Folks,

> Note that this approach puts us in competition with intranet software, 
> CMSes, virtual meeting software, Lotus Notes, and that thing that was 
> made by that guy before he went to Microsoft...  Ray Ozzie?    What was 
> that thing he had that was a sharing platform?  Groove, or something 
> like that?  Is it still around?

I think I've read stories about Groove still being popular in the 
military, because of its encrypted P2P bits.

I agree, focusing on a shared workspace does put us in the same space as 
all the things PJE mentions.  Is that bad?  My sense is that people get 
pretty excited about shared spaces, but with the exception of Groove 
they're all aimed at *really* large groups.

> One of the very first problems we'll hit in that space is that our 
> conflict resolution isn't fine-grained enough to support this kind of 
> collaboration unless it's synchronous or there's just one person 
> managing a given project.

I agree that if we're encouraging people to manage small projects as one 
item's text field, our text field conflict management is inadequate.

Still, I really like the general outlines of Chandler's existing triage 
workflow, especially as it relates to group project management.  If we 
could prioritize oft-mentioned but never-implemented clusters, I'd be a 
lot more satisfied, and I think some (though certainly not all) of the 
impedance mismatch between Chandler's feature set and GTD practitioners 
desired features would go away.

Clusters might change the frequency with which detail view conflicts 
happened.  I think conflict management for notes fields would still be 
an issue, but perhaps not so bad that the still-incomplete system 
wouldn't be useful?

Sincerely,
Jeffrey