On Dec 7, 2007 3:34 PM, Sheila Mooney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Similarly to the email I sent about the Desktop 1.0 plan, I wanted to start > some dialog around our plans for the Server.
I don't see anything particularly controversial here, but this plan continues to ignore one major feature that our users keep requesting week after week, in IRC and email, and in the recent questionnaire on chandler-users: better access control. it seems that many people who are already adopting Cosmo aren't satisfied with ticket-based sharing but rather want to set permissions on a per-user or per-group basis. some of our most vocal recent users are using Cosmo in an office environment that is less casual than a family or book club. I would really appreciate a firm statement one way or another on whether we're going to address this issue for 1.0. this will help me give a better answer every time somebody new asks me about the feature. I also don't see anything about scheduling in this plan. after the last on-site staff meeting and subsequent talks with various managers, I had the impression that we were going to give serious consideration to scheduling features. that's the last I heard on the subject. what happened? I'm glad to see that we're starting to plan again in larger feature windows than the two week release cycles. I think we've been a little too preoccupied with bugs and haven't looked beyond the short term for quite some time. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
