Re: [Design] Re: [Proposal] List consolidation

+1 on more blogging about high level vision and direction.

-Brian


On Jan 17, 2008, at 12:59 PM, Mimi Yin wrote:

> I think moving design discussions to a consolidated chandler- 
> development list is a great idea. I think it will help focus  
> discussions around workaday issues. The users list will continue to  
> serve as a way for users to ask questions and provide feedback.
>
> At the same time, we should get in the habit of posting more  
> regularly to the blog about project status, planning and product  
> direction because I think we'll reach a broader audience of readers  
> that way. It will help us do a better job of making our internal  
> decision-making process more transparent to the community. In the  
> past, it's been difficult to elevate high-level issues above the  
> minutiae of the design list.
>
> We've already begun posting more the blog, so stay tuned for more!  
> http://blog.chandlerproject.org/
>
> Mimi
>
> On Jan 17, 2008, at 10:37 AM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:
>
>> OSAF is now in in a phase of the project with a smaller staff and  
>> with a need to move quickly and be conservative with our  
>> resources. To be more focused, my goal is to work as *one* team  
>> during this phase, no longer thinking of ourselves as separate  
>> product, desktop, server, qa, and management teams.
>>
>> We've ended all existing regular meetings, and now have one daily  
>> meeting with all 10 staff members. We're currently doing this on  
>> the phone while we get our footing, but may eventually transition  
>> to IRC.
>>
>> I'd like to move our work back to the lists -- they've gone a bit  
>> quiet since the transition announcement.
>>
>> At the daily meeting we discussed having fewer lists where we  
>> conduct daily work. Below is a proposal.
>>
>> Goals:
>> - Integrate design and engineering discussions
>> - Use the same space for "chandler project" discussions, ranging  
>> from product schedule to design discussions to public strategy  
>> discussions
>> - Keep a separate space for people who are interested in the  
>> server but not the rest of the project
>> - Only maintain one list for "core" members to discuss strategy  
>> and organizational business, including relationships with  
>> individual people and organizations that might not be appropriate  
>> to be public. Note that this list would include project members  
>> who are not staff members. (As always, we want a path to that  
>> status for people who have never been staff members but grow their  
>> role into being key project contributors).
>>
>> The Proposal:
>> - Change the charter of chandler-dev -- make this list into the  
>> "Chandler Project" list. Move work from design@ and general@ onto  
>> this list, and stop using design@ and general@. Move work from  
>> service-dev@ onto this list as well.
>> - Continue using cosmo-dev for largely technical conversations  
>> about the server. If the conversation is a "product" or "project"  
>> conversation, use chandler-dev instead.
>> - With the altered charter of chandler-dev, the desktop would not  
>> have a separate list. The supporting argument is that people who  
>> are interested in the desktop are likely interested in the whole  
>> project -- desktop plugins will likely want to sync on the server,  
>> etc. Cosmo (Chandler Server) is more likely to have a development  
>> community that is interested in the server for its own sake.
>> - I've made a similar consolidation proposal on the private lists.
>>
>> Other osaf lists that would remain active and have the same charter:
>> announce
>> chandler-users
>> commits-cosmo
>> commits-l10n
>> commits-pyicu
>> commits-sandbox
>> commits-vobject
>> commits-zanshin
>> google-analytics-reports
>> pyicu-dev
>> pylucene-dev
>> windmill-commits
>> windmill-dev
>>
>> Lists osaf is currently hosting but perhaps should move elsewhere?  
>> We'll work with Lisa if we ought to move them.
>> ietf-caldav
>> ietf-calsify
>> ietf-carddav
>> ietf-http-auth
>>
>> Thoughts welcome. Please respond to the proposal by end-of-day  
>> Friday, on general@. Sooner is appreciated if you have strong  
>> objections or a counter proposal. Apologies for the cross-posting  
>> -- it is one of the things we're trying to avoid with the new  
>> proposal!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Katie
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>
>> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
>> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Open Source Applications Foundation "General" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/general