Re: Proposal for a simple plan Arthur A. Gleckler 12 Jul 2019 22:13 UTC
Lassi Kortela <email@example.com> writes: | To me, that's a heavyweight planning process - | it didn't even occur to me that we could go into | such detail. The way I see it, a natural split | is at major software boundaries: | | - server (graphql server and metadata scrapers) | - client 1 (web) | - client 2 (e.g. emacs) | - client 3 (e.g. repl or command line program) | | Dividing these into sub-items is wishful | thinking at this stage, and mainly increases | communication/planning costs. If more than one | person works on one item, that's fine but the | communication needs to be so nuanced and | frequent that plans or todos do more harm than | good. I didn't ask anyone to divide those into sub-items. Just pick tasks, at whatever level, and let people know. You proposed a bunch of high-level tasks, and I suggested that people who wanted to work on each thing speak up. | Are there concrete things that could go wrong | _with the end result_ if we do things in this | messy way we have done until now? If so, could | we just address those concerns? If the only | concern is that things will take a few months to | stabilize, I don't see that as a problem, | because realistically that's going to happen | with any approach. Non-trivial creative work | always takes time until the result stabilizes. Yes, absolutely. Volunteers might not step forward because they don't want to step on someone else's toes by duplicating their efforts, but can't even find out what they're working on so as to pick a different project. | As for onboarding new people, I would suggest | that people simply say if they are particularly | enthusiastic about working on something, and | then we find a way for them to work on | that. Enthusiasm is the best driver. Yes, exactly. All I'm suggesting is that people say what they plan to work on so that others will know. I don't know how to be clearer that I'm not suggesting fine-grained planning.