Hi,
>You can certainly fire them over to me - I'll be happy to test.
>
Great! Thanks. I'm just about ready to send you a bunch of stuff, I
think. Have worked out the citations business and will ask you a few
questions privately if that's OK.
>>Well, yeah, you're right. Rather than comment on this further right now,
>>because I want to crash out, let's just agree that redesign is another issue
>>entirely (in fact we really do need one, I believe), and that reformatting
>>is just a stopgap - it doesn't address the issues you mention. Over the next
>>couple of weeks we'll obviously have to hash this out.
>>
OK. I think my concern here grows from the fact that (a) I'm new and (b)
the comments I've seen recently about redesign have not, to me, been
design issues. Also, I want to say that I was not complaining about the
code quality as such - in a project like this just about all code is
Good Code and it's important to be grateful for and gracious about it -
but just that the quality variability can itself cause problems.
>The design is still holding its own (you'd have to read the archives to get
>a feel for why we want to move on, but all that discussion pertains to a
>"FOP 2"), but one real problem is the lack of design documentation - docs &
>diagrams. Another real problem is that we are operating sort of at a CMM
>Level 1 - the project is succeeding because of individuals and not because
>of process. All stuff we need to talk about, definitely.
>
Yeah, but I suspect an open source project can never get much past CMM 1
by it's very nature. I like the idea of the CMM categories but I think
that in practise CMM can't solve problems for a bunch of autonomous
people who don't even share a time zone. But there is probably going to
be a better time than the present to talk about that sort of thing. :-)
Cheers
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
