Next focus: PROCESS

[Rob T]

On Thursday, 20 December 2012 at 08:27:22 UTC, foobar wrote:
> I see both as going hand-in-hand, otherwise we have chicken-egg 
> problem.
> We need a better process to allow more developers to contribute 
> code more easily *and* we need better planning to provide 
> incentive for new developer to contribute code.
> Implementing only the the planning provides incentive but no 
> means. Implementing only the process provides the means but not 
> the incentive.
>
> While improving git mastery levels is beneficial of itself, it 
> brings no benefit to the _users_ if only Walter is still the 
> main developer. We end up wasting Walter's time on adjusting to 
> a new system for a hypothetical non existent system of many 
> developers, when he already has a working system for the actual 
> existing situation of being the sole main developer.
>
> We need an *initial high-level* design for both parts. We can 
> define and refine the details later and we probably should 
> defer it to later and adjust it as we go along based on 
> experience.
> Arguing now on the exact time span of a release just wastes 
> mind cycles and detracts from the important bits - reaching a 
> consensus regarding the goals of the project and defining a 
> general workflow that achieves those goals with minimal amount 
> of overhead.

I think what was proposed - to fast track this one, and not over 
engineer - is a good idea. That way we can at least get something 
that's far better than before, and be able to more quickly move 
on to the next big problem area which I would agree is what you 
are mentioning. There's lack of planning and how decisions are 
made is very inefficient and arbitrary, and I would also say we 
have a big problem with the specification being poorly managed, 
eg, it's not even available for download, has no process for 
revisions and releases, nothing at all - it's worse than the 
existing development process which we all agree is in need of a 
big overhaul.

Please, let's all agree to deal with that monster next, but it's 
a big problem to solve, and if we try to bundle it in with this 
one, we may not get any accomplished at all. I'd prefer the 
divide and conquer approach.

--rt