<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Re: [mapguide-psc] RFC process...</TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>This is my first time involvement in open source and don't
know much about RFC's, so I hope I am on topic.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I would like to point that I think that every person
comment counts, no meter if user/developer/..</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>So, I think this RFC's templates needs to be easy
understandable and that every one can express opinion no metter on
skills.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>It is not good if they are too techincal and pre-finished
so non-developers got "affraid" to contribute to them.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>I suppose this is not new and presumably we all agree
on this. Anyhow I wanted to express my opinion.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2>Haris</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=578512217-28102006><FONT face=Arial
color=#0000ff size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Jason Birch
[mailto:Jason.Birch@nanaimo.ca] <BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, October 28, 2006 7:17
PM<BR><B>To:</B> psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [mapguide-psc]
RFC process...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText76479 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2></FONT>Does working group
sound better? :)</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I think that the website, documentation, etc will be an area where
non-developers will really be able to contribute, and the split between
coding/presentation is clear enough (at least in my fuzzy mind) that
splitting the work between coders/documentors would be reasonable. As
an aside, I think that these two roles would need to be distinct in
LDAP. Anyway, this is a while down the road and will come up again.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I don't buy that a solution a developer has thought through and
even coded themselves is necessesarily the best solution for the project.
By nature a single individual, or even a single organisation, does not have the
breadth of experience or understanding of the problem realm to create a
solution that is the best fit for our entire user base. We need to ensure
that the project does not turn into a Frankenstein's monster of solutions
that have been built in isolation. The problem is that the investment
(time and emotion) in fait-accomplis solutions is such that it is difficult to
shift their path once they are presented unless there is a severe
defect.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>I concede that a lot of the existing development will likely come
as pre-canned solutions because of where this project is starting from, and that
in some cases it will be desirable to accept contributions to the code base that
have been developed in isolation, but I really want to stress that by
default we should have open development starting at the
conceptualisation phase.</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Jason</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> Robert Bray
[mailto:rbray@robertbray.net]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Sat 2006-10-28 12:00
AM<BR><B>To:</B> psc@mapguide.osgeo.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [mapguide-psc]
RFC process...<BR></FONT><BR></DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>Jason,<BR><BR>Personally I would like to avoid subcommittees,
mainly because of the<BR>pain OSGeo is feeling now due to fragmentation. Whether
we need an RFC<BR>for the web site is a different debate, maybe / maybe not. It
really<BR>depends on the scope of the change.<BR><BR>To address your core
concern though, I expect a mix of RFCs. Some will<BR>start with lots of
discussion on the dev list and evolve into a fully<BR>baked RFC. Others may come
pre-baked, because the developer has already<BR>thought it through pretty
thoroughly (and maybe even has a prototype<BR>running). It really depends highly
on the author and what is being<BR>proposed. The key is to welcome active
discussion of ideas on the dev<BR>list. Also remember that an RFC is a living
document up until the time<BR>it is voted on and approved. It can start with
just an idea and no<BR>implementation detail. We should make that clear on the
how to create an<BR>RFC page (hmm guess we need one of those).<BR><BR>Does that
clarify or confuse the issue more?<BR><BR>Bob<BR><BR>Jason Birch wrote:<BR>>
<A
href="http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Template">http://wiki.osgeo.org/index.php/MapGuide_RFC_Template</A><BR>> <BR>>
Do we really want the RFC process to apply to the web site? Maybe for
major overhauls, but personally I think that this kind of thing could be better
dealt with informally, perhaps by a web site
subcommittee. <BR>> <BR>> Also, I'm a bit scared of an RFC
process that appears to expect the presentation of a well-thought-out canned
solution, which is then subject to debate on the DEV list. I think that we
should be encouraging an informal process where a problem/solution pair (or just
the problem) is put forward to the DEV list/channel as a rough WIKI page, and is
then debated and polished into a form where it can be submitted as an
RFC.<BR>> <BR>> This kind of process gives us better solutions, and
ensures that the original submitter only needs to do a limited amount of work
before starting the discussion, reducing the emotional attachment to a
particular solution.<BR>><BR>>
Jason<BR>><BR>> <BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV></BODY></HTML>