forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: xhtml2 tonights update & questions
Date Fri, 09 Sep 2005 13:42:46 GMT
Gav.... wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "David Crossley" <crossley@apache.org>
> To: <dev@forrest.apache.org>
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: xhtml2 tonights update & questions
> <snip all that good stuff, I'll need it for later />
> 
>  I wonder if we could do another collaborative work day soon.
> and take on the whole job.
> |
> | -David
> 
> When you say soon are you thinking before the next scheduled FT ?
> 
> If so, I believe this a good idea in more ways than one,
> 
> 1. We get on with it and get lots more done.
> 2. We end all confusion that is building up.

No. The confusion is caused by the fact that people are unable to be 
online at the same time and therefore not able to discuss things. Work 
progresses, but only in the direction of identified by those online at 
any one time.

We need to be clear on what we are going to achieve and how *before* 
having a Forrest Tuesday event.

> 3. Getting everyones ideas sorted out in real time, direction gets sorted, 
> leads back to point 2 and then point 1.

Only if everyone is online at the same time.

> 4. We seem to be at a major evolution step, and also therefore a major 
> hurdle/barrier, this is causing lots of noise
>     on this list that can and probably will carry on for weeks until the 
> next FT. Having a much earlier collaborative
>     IRC get together will sort this out.

No, having asynchronous discussion will sort out the issues. This is not 
noise, it is very important dicussion that is analysing the experimental 
work carried out on Forrest Tuesday. We have to find what is valuable 
about that approach and what is valuable about the alternative 
approaches that have not yet been worked on.

I am +1 for another Forrest Tuesday, but I want a clear set of tasks and 
objectives defined first so that there is no chance of a repeat of the 
current problems. Clearly the discussion we had onlist, that was then 
added to JIRA [1] was not detailed or expressive enough to ensure we are 
all singing from the same sheet yet.

The current discussion will help clarify the subtasks we need to carry out.

[1] http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FOR-184

Ross

Mime
View raw message