[General] Getting Chandler and Cosmo out the door

[Katie Capps Parlante]

Hi Steve,

A few comments on the thread you started here...

+ The general@ list in particular is a forum for discussing 
administriva, project governance, and other cross project issues that 
don't fit on other lists. You might not be aware that cosmo-dev@ and 
chandler-dev@ lists are forums for discussing coding and architecture 
issues, and the design@ list is a forum for discussing the design of the 
products.

+ If I look at the alpha-beta-dogfood-preview discussion as an example, 
I see that people with different roles on the project (architecture and 
coding, build, release management, product management, qa, etc.) 
participated in the discussion and were taken seriously. As an example, 
I would hardly describe PJE as a "grunt" -- his opinion is highly 
respected, he cared that we make a good decision about milestone 
numbering, and he changed my mind with his arguments. (I'm one of the 
dreaded "managers", PJE is an architect and a writer of code). I don't 
know that we have any "silent grunts" here -- people in all roles are 
pretty active in discussions and decisions on cosmo-dev@, chandler-dev@ 
and design at . I'll reiterate Mikeal's point: we try to conduct most 
discussions and make decisions on public lists. This includes product 
management, project management, release management, etc.

+ FYI, our first round audience extends beyond "engineers and techies". 
We already have people inside OSAF using Chandler and the Cosmo server 
who are not techies. Our target users are small work groups. If you are 
interested in learning more about the target users, you can follow the 
discussions on the design list and check out the wiki. Warning: the 
information is fairly involved, we don't yet have a high level summary 
intended for someone who hasn't been participating in the design 
discussions.
http://lists.osafoundation.org/pipermail/design/2006-June/004884.html
http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Journal/OneDotZeroTargetUser

+ It is indeed important to focus on "shipping" Chandler and Cosmo.

Lets keep the conversation civil, everyone.

Cheers,
Katie

stephen white wrote:
> On 02/09/2006, at 9:34 AM, Philippe Bossut wrote:
>> During our last IRC office hour, it was proposed that we reduce the 
>> duration of the weekly IRC meeting to 30 minutes.
> 
> A comment that I've seen about OSA is that it's run by successful 
> people... so they all spend their time managing the high level details 
> instead of getting on with the grunt work. Too many managers, not enough 
> chefs, leading to what appears to be happening here - days and days of 
> messages about whether it's "alpha", "beta" or "dogfood".
> 
> Just call it "Piddly Wonk" or something completely and utterly 
> meaningless, and shove it out of the door. Success or failure isn't 
> going to be measured by what it's called but by what it does and how 
> well it achieves the objectives (if identified) that it sets out to 
> address. Engineers and techies are going to be your first round 
> audience, and we don't care about the label.
> 
> Steve.
>     (a grunt, not a manager)
> 
> -- 
>   spwhite at chariot.net.au
> 
> 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 
> Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general