[mapguide-psc] RFC process...

[Jason Birch]

Paul,
 
I'm less worried about a feature not meeting all needs, than I am about a feature limiting our ability to solve those other needs in the future.
 
You said, "it is better to have the feature than to not have it."  This is what worries me.  Although as a PSC we will have the ability to say No or Try Again, it will be difficult to exercise this negative power when presented with a feature that meets some needs.  The developers that are contributing the code will end up driving the direction of the product, rather than the PSC.  I think that by encouraging discussion prior to submission or at the starting point of the RFC, we will end up with a bettter product and reduce the amount of times the code has to be refactored to meet some "unforeseen" need.
 
I'm not saying that we would reject outright contributions (after all, the contributions will not be developed in the absense of user need), but the current RFC template/process seems to encourage private conceptualisation and implementation in advance of submission.
 
I'm a little worried that I'm in the minority here, as most of the PSC have independantly developed contributions, and because as a non-developer I can be written off as impractical :)
 
Jason

________________________________

From: Paul Spencer
Sent: Sat 2006-10-28 10:34 AM
To: psc at mapguide.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [mapguide-psc] RFC process...



Jason, I agree in principle but not in practice.  Don't forget that 
this is an open source project and we are trying to encourage 
participation and contribution through volunteer efforts :)

If someone has thought through and implemented a workable solution, 
that's actually a pretty decent start.  It may not be the best way to 
solve a problem, but as long as the code is sound and architecturally 
in line with the project, it is better to have the feature than to 
not have it.

People will generally contribute stuff that solves a problem for 
them, not for anyone else.  There is not a lot of incentive to solve 
a problem that doesn't impact them.

We (the PSC) has the power to accept or reject an RFC, or to turn it 
back for rewriting with comments.  And at the end of the day, it is a 
group decision to accept it.  I, for one, will be happy to get any 
outside contributions and will be generally accepting of those 
contributions even if they don't meet all potential needs.  You have 
to start somewhere.

Anyway, that's my opinion ... :)

Cheers

Paul


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 5346 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide_psc/attachments/20061028/9cf56398/attachment.bin