A couple big ideas: cosmo release and server project merge

Brian Moseley wrote:
> On 2/3/06, Ted Leung <twlosafoundation.org>
wrote:
> 
>> I think that the sheer volume of traffic will make
this impossible at
>> some point.    The amount of traffic will be a
deterrent to people
>> subscribing to a single list.
> 
> also, end users are defined differently for each
project. the end user
> of cosmo is most likely a system administrator, which
won't be true
> for chandler. scooby will probably fall somewhere in
between.

Subscribing to two lists might be a deterrent to some users
if they 
think of it as one product. Now, this is maybe where I'm out
on a limb, 
the idea that we want to think of this as one coherent
system from a 
user's perspective, and not completely loosely coupled
projects that 
have little relationship to each other beyond using standard
protocols.

But agreed, a cosmo system administrator is a different
population. 
Perhaps with scooby you have two distinct groups, those who
want to host 
a scooby service and end users of our scooby service.

Cheers,
Katie

_______________________________________________
Cosmo mailing list
Cosmoosafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo

On 2/3/06, Katie Capps Parlante <cappsosafoundation.org> wrote:

> Subscribing to two lists might be a deterrent to some
users if they
> think of it as one product. Now, this is maybe where
I'm out on a limb,

agree. my intuition is that one user list for both cosmo and
scooby is
the right choice, and i can see arguments for both combining
the dev
lists and keeping them separate. i think we can probably
just keep
doing what we're already doing there until some real problem
crops up.

> the idea that we want to think of this as one coherent
system from a
> user's perspective, and not completely loosely coupled
projects that
> have little relationship to each other beyond using
standard protocols.

yeah! maybe to us developers they are two separate things,
and
certainly to some users, but i think the majority of users,
in time,
will not see the distinction, thinking of the whole thing as
"the
calendar server".

do any of us think of zimbra as a whole bunch of projects?
nope. it's
zimbra. but i'm sure their development community has lots of
divisions.

when i worked at critical path, we had these gigantic
platform
releases that involved simultaneous releases of a few to a
dozen or
more individual apps and systems, each managed, developed,
versioned,
documented independently inside the engineering
organization. did the
users of the service ever hear about any of that? nope. they
just
heard about the platform release. to them, our service was
one big
unified blob.

i'm pretty sure that's how our users will come to see our
stuff.

> But agreed, a cosmo system administrator is a different
population.
> Perhaps with scooby you have two distinct groups, those
who want to host
> a scooby service and end users of our scooby service.

very likely.
_______________________________________________
Cosmo mailing list
Cosmoosafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo

In the short-term how likely is it for pure Scooby end-users
to be on  
the list?

On Feb 3, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Katie Capps Parlante wrote:

> Brian Moseley wrote:
>> On 2/3/06, Ted Leung <twlosafoundation.org>
wrote:
>>> I think that the sheer volume of traffic will
make this  
>>> impossible at
>>> some point.    The amount of traffic will be a
deterrent to people
>>> subscribing to a single list.
>> also, end users are defined differently for each
project. the end  
>> user
>> of cosmo is most likely a system administrator,
which won't be true
>> for chandler. scooby will probably fall somewhere
in between.
>
> Subscribing to two lists might be a deterrent to some
users if they  
> think of it as one product. Now, this is maybe where
I'm out on a  
> limb, the idea that we want to think of this as one
coherent system  
> from a user's perspective, and not completely loosely
coupled  
> projects that have little relationship to each other
beyond using  
> standard protocols.
>
> But agreed, a cosmo system administrator is a different
population.  
> Perhaps with scooby you have two distinct groups, those
who want to  
> host a scooby service and end users of our scooby
service.
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Scooby mailing list
> Scoobyosafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/lis
tinfo/scooby

_______________________________________________
Cosmo mailing list
Cosmoosafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo

On 2/3/06, Mimi Yin <mimiosafoundation.org>
wrote:
> In the short-term how likely is it for pure Scooby
end-users to be on
> the list?

in the short term, very unlikely. chandler 0.6 is way more
usable than
scooby 0.1, and how many end users do we have on the dev
list?
_______________________________________________
Cosmo mailing list
Cosmoosafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo

Well I guess we're done with the discussion of re-arranging
the  
project forums (combining dev lists,etc) and will not change
things  
in the short term.  Which leaves two more open discussions.

1.  What is Snarf's home?  I propose that we make it part of
Scooby.   
We could keep the name or call it something more like
"scooby-oob"  
depending on what the purpose of the download is.   Let's
discuss here.

2. Are we going to change the Cosmo 0.3 plan to release a
version of  
Cosmo *this month* to align with Scooby 0.1?
  - We are gathering info on the QA impact
  - We are triaging bugs and estimating remaining
development work
  --> thus we're working on this and will provide updates
to this  
list later

Lisa

On Feb 3, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Brian Moseley wrote:

> On 2/3/06, Katie Capps Parlante <cappsosafoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> Subscribing to two lists might be a deterrent to
some users if they
>> think of it as one product. Now, this is maybe
where I'm out on a  
>> limb,
>
> agree. my intuition is that one user list for both
cosmo and scooby is
> the right choice, and i can see arguments for both
combining the dev
> lists and keeping them separate. i think we can
probably just keep
> doing what we're already doing there until some real
problem crops up.
>
>> the idea that we want to think of this as one
coherent system from a
>> user's perspective, and not completely loosely
coupled projects that
>> have little relationship to each other beyond using
standard  
>> protocols.
>
> yeah! maybe to us developers they are two separate
things, and
> certainly to some users, but i think the majority of
users, in time,
> will not see the distinction, thinking of the whole
thing as "the
> calendar server".
>
> do any of us think of zimbra as a whole bunch of
projects? nope. it's
> zimbra. but i'm sure their development community has
lots of
> divisions.
>
> when i worked at critical path, we had these gigantic
platform
> releases that involved simultaneous releases of a few
to a dozen or
> more individual apps and systems, each managed,
developed, versioned,
> documented independently inside the engineering
organization. did the
> users of the service ever hear about any of that? nope.
they just
> heard about the platform release. to them, our service
was one big
> unified blob.
>
> i'm pretty sure that's how our users will come to see
our stuff.
>
>> But agreed, a cosmo system administrator is a
different population.
>> Perhaps with scooby you have two distinct groups,
those who want  
>> to host
>> a scooby service and end users of our scooby
service.
>
> very likely.
> _______________________________________________
> Cosmo mailing list
> Cosmoosafoundation.org
> http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo

_______________________________________________
Cosmo mailing list
Cosmoosafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmo