I think that we fail to communicate because we have different un-spoken assumptions. Let's take the following sentence as an example for what I mean by that: " less expert users should work on the easy tasks (that they can do), even if it takes them a bit longer, leaving the more expert users to work on the harder tasks"
What might be an un-spoken assumption in this sentence? "There is a "shortage" of time/effort for developing both easy and complex solutions - One "must" come "in the expense" of another." In other words, there is a "GIVEN" time or amount of effort that "experienced" developers have to spare/contribute. Within that given time, an experienced-developer may "either" work on a complex task "or" a set of easy ones - he can not do both. I think the problem is not with your logic. The problem is with this assumption. As there is no formal road-map, then there "IS NO *GIVEN*" time in existence that can be pointed at. Therefore, using the word "leaving" in "leaving the experienced developer..." has no actual meaning in this context. A developer may "think" he has more tasks that he would like to accomplish, than spare-time to do them all, but that's a cognitive-illusion on his part. There can only be shortage of spare-time if there is a schedule to frame the time-context. If there is no schedule in existence, than there is no time-frame, and therefore no shortage, and any derivative-term that assumes shortage looses it's meaning. As for users=developers - yes you are right. I may have a different expectation than what in expected/accepted in the web2py community. That would be a flaw of communication on the part of the web2py community/developers/maintainers/managers etc. If web2py has a different set of meaning to common-terminology compared to other open-source communities, then this information should be explicit and up-front - say, on a sticky-thread on this forum and/or a document explaining this anywhere else. As long as it is NOT explicit/up-front, it would be erroneous of any well-versed web2py contributor to assume this knowledge on the part of other web2py "whatever"s... If anything, the correct assumption should be the opposite. On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > However, it seems that our common interest for a road-map, may not fit the >> way you operate - as you said, if developers don't need a feature, it will >> not be written. >> This nulls the possibility of web2py developers answering the needs of >> web2py users. >> > > Arnon, I think you are somewhat missing the point. This is not necessarily > true of all open source projects, but at least with web2py, the users are > the developers. Of course, not all users are developers, but contributions > to the framework (as well as other aspects of community maintenance) come > from users. As Massimo suggested, if some feature is really important or > broadly useful, some user or users will end up working on it, likely > because they themselves need it and are willing to put in the extra effort > to generalize the solution. If nobody is willing to work on a particular > feature, it is likely because there just isn't a strong enough need for it. > If you're the only guy asking for something, don't expect someone else to > do it for you. > > >> I agree that a road-map should not contain deadlines - that makes sense >> (I hate deadlines...:) ) - this way more efficient usage of man-power would >> be possible, as the "eventual existence" of a well-written feature, is in >> most cases of higher-priority to users than a >> poorly-written-immediate-**availability >> of that same feature. This way, the person with the most >> experience/knowledge of a given section of the code, would be the one to >> develop that feature, however long it may take for him to get to it. >> That was the point I tried to convey to Anthony - it feels like we see >> more eye-to-eye on this point. >> > > The point you conveyed was that you were unwilling to spend your time on a > relatively easy task because you thought someone else could do it faster > (though, it's starting to sound like you wouldn't be willing even if you > could do it just as quickly, as you consider yourself to be a mere "user" > who expects "developers" to respond to your needs). I have not suggested > that we should prefer poorly-written features over well-written features > merely to get the features sooner. I was actually making the opposite point > -- that less expert users should work on the easy tasks (that they can do), > even if it takes them a bit longer, leaving the more expert users to work > on the harder tasks. And of course, there are always trade-offs -- we > might prefer a competent but less sophisticated implementation next week > over a comprehensive and complex implementation a year from now, > particularly since the two options are not mutually exclusive. There is > room for people of varying abilities to make contributions. If you don't > want to be one of them, that's fine. > > Anthony > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "web2py-users" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/web2py/CHfZTr5xHso/unsubscribe?hl=en. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
