Hi Simone.
Can you have a run through the roadmap ideas page?
- http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/Roadmap+Ideas
I would like to combine this content with the road map page in order to make the shopping list idea more visible as per your blog post suggestion. I t may also help to group things by amount of effort? days, weeks, months in order to get a breakdown for people.
Jody
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
Hi Simone.
Can you have a run through the roadmap ideas page? -
http://geoserver.org/display/GEOS/Roadmap+IdeasI would like to combine this content with the road map page in order
to make the shopping list idea more visible as per your blog post
suggestion. I t may also help to group things by amount of effort?
days, weeks, months in order to get a breakdown for people.
Looked at the page, the way it's structured makes no much sense to me.
Imho there are only two categories of ideas:
- those that already have funding, and thus can be talked about in a
roadmap document with fixed dates and releases
- those that are still looking for funding, and thus can't be scheduled
at all
The first pertain in a roadmap, the second one should not be associated
to any specific version of the software, present or future.
Same goes for community modules: they are work in progress that can be
dropped at any time, so whilst there is some commitment, there is no
way to say when they'll be good enough to enter into a release.
What I'm saying is that the ideas page should be a flat list organised
by topic, and once an idea gets resorcing enough to target being
core/extension then it can be moved to a roadmap.
Amount of effort wise, it might be good to have that information, thought there is a nasty tension there: maybe I make an estimate of,
say, 5 days, and someone else manages to find a sponsor, but he's
able to make the work in 3 weeks. There is also the vast difference
in hourly rates between companies that makes the conversion into
economic units daunting at best.
What if we invert the situation and try to get people listing themselves
as interested in a certain topic somehow?
Some things, like for example WMS 1.3 implementation, might be too much
for a singe entity to bear the cost, but if there is a list of entities
that can share this would become more manageable. At the moment it's
hard to know if there is such a situation (multiple entities that could
be interesting in sharing, that is).
Of course I'm talking cost here, but it could be effort, that is, people interested in donating their time and work instead.
Thoughts?
Cheers
Andrea
--
Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.
Looked at the page, the way it's structured makes no much sense to me.
Imho there are only two categories of ideas:
- those that already have funding, and thus can be talked about in a
roadmap document with fixed dates and releases
- those that are still looking for funding, and thus can't be scheduled
at all
I think we are focused on the ideas in need of funds; and providing a point of contact. My suggestion of time should perhaps be phrased in terms of small / medium / large if that is easier.
The first pertain in a roadmap, the second one should not be associated
to any specific version of the software, present or future.
So what should we call it? Proposed Features? Shopping list? Good Ideas?
Same goes for community modules: they are work in progress that can be
dropped at any time, so whilst there is some commitment, there is no
way to say when they'll be good enough to enter into a release.What I'm saying is that the ideas page should be a flat list organised
by topic, and once an idea gets resorcing enough to target being
core/extension then it can be moved to a roadmap.
So while you are correct; the two concepts are related in people's mind. Someone checking out the road map is wondering about the future of GeoServer - we need to let them see that they can effect the future - without asking them to click on another page.
Amount of effort wise, it might be good to have that information, thought there is a nasty tension there: maybe I make an estimate of,
say, 5 days, and someone else manages to find a sponsor, but he's able to make the work in 3 weeks. There is also the vast difference in hourly rates between companies that makes the conversion into economic units daunting at best.
If this topic is hard we should just use small / medium / large.
What if we invert the situation and try to get people listing themselves as interested in a certain topic somehow?
I don't think that will work; even though I would love for it to happen. We are going to need to work really hard even to have them email their interest.
Some things, like for example WMS 1.3 implementation, might be too much for a singe entity to bear the cost, but if there is a list of entities
that can share this would become more manageable. At the moment it's hard to know if there is such a situation (multiple entities that could
be interesting in sharing, that is).
Agreed; thus far we tend to pull these oppertunities for collaborative funding together by talking to people.
Of course I'm talking cost here, but it could be effort, that is, people interested in donating their time and work instead.
Thoughts?
You are on the right track; the 1st thing to do is to cut that page down and get the funded items out of the page. We should probably leave community modules in the list - as they are an opportunity for people to take part.
jody