Re: community design participation

Bill,

We've tried to position Chandler as to purpose, target user, 
differentiation from existing products on the web site, as further 
developed in my web log.

I've been impressed that the vast majority of postings seem to be "on 
target" even without anything more detailed than what we've done.  There's 
been a lot of discussion about very advanced features.  Chandler is going 
to support some very advanced features.  The design trick is to provide 
room for these without them getting in the way of basic use.

What specifically would be most useful to you in anchoring the design 
discussion further?  I'd like to take it into account.

Mitch

At 09:57 AM 11/8/2002, Bill Seitz wrote:
>I think just getting everything possible that's "in" OSAF "out to" 
>everyone else is the first priority. Even if you just dump out to a 
>read-only wiki.
>
>Of that, I believe the highest priority is info defining the context. I'm 
>especially frustrated by the weeks of detailed discussions happening in 
>the absence of user scenarios, profiles, etc. Have such things already 
>been documented? If so, get'em out there, even in static pages. If not, 
>announce that, so that others can get started...
>
>http://webseitz.fluxent.com/wiki/OSAF
>
>Mitch Kapor wrote:
>
>>We have the beginning of a plan to address this and some related issues 
>>by creating a topically organized wiki as a collaborative document to 
>>represent the current state of thinking and discussion about Chandler design.
>
>>
>>
>>The details of the plan will be worked out on the process list once we 
>>can put up a strawman draft, which will be shortly. We're all going to 
>>learn together how to do this.
>
>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>
>Open Source Applications Foundation "Process" mailing list
>http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/process

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

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