andrew@dunslane.net wrote:
> Ron Mayer wrote:
>>> We have not had that many cases where lack of
>>> communication was a problem.
>> One could say too much communication was the problem this time.
>>
>> I get the impression people implied they'd do something on a TODO
>> and didn't. Arguably the project had been better off if noone
>> had claimed the TODO, so if another company/team/whatever needed
>> the feature badly, they could have worked on it themselves rather
>> than waiting in hope of the feature.
>
> This is just perverse. Surely you are not seriously suggesting that we
> should all develop in secret and then spring miracles fully grown on the
> community?
Of course not. What I'm suggesting is two things.
(1) That misleading information is worse than no information; and
that speculative information next to TODOs can do as much harm
discouraging others as it the good it does for communication. Perhaps
a name/assignment/claim on a todo might be nice if someone wanted a
private conversation with someone who knows about a feature; but
even there wouldn't a public discussion on the lists likely be better?
(2) That much corporate development on BSD projects is indeed
developed in secret. Although may want to be contributed later
either because the company no longer decides it's a trade-secret
or gets tired of maintaining their own fork. Sure, such patches
might need even more discussion and revision than if they were
designed with core - but I think it's a reality that such work
exists.
> We have bumped patches before because they have done things
> without discussing them, and were found not to be accepatble. The more
> complex features get, the more communication is needed.
Agreed, of course. This makes me think that ongoing discussion
on hackers & patches is the only way to judge progress on a
todo; and anything like assigned names & estimated dates & releases
are less likely to be meaningful than what one could infer from
discussions on the lists.
