On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 18:06:39 +0200 "Hector Oron" <hector.oron@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it is great to have a roadmap or planning tool. Has anyone used group-aware versions of such tools? Planner is very set on 'the manager' doing the plan and 'the resources' (yuk) doing the work. I'd like a more equitable model. > It helps to > get things done or at least to see what needs to be done. The main difference is the level of detail available. In tools like planner, individual bug reports can be cited (it would be really nice if the tool was able to load http:// links though). Doing nested levels in a wiki just gets very complicated to maintain. It is hard enough maintaining the Emdebian RootFS wiki page. Just making a ToDo item of "Improve documentation" is not that useful. Breaking that down into which sections need work, where new material can be found, what problems exist in converting from Docbook to WML etc., these provide openings for others to get involved. Big tasks need to be broken down into smaller chunks. Planner helps this by allowing multiple nested tasks without bloating the list of tasks - users can expand and collapse tasks and sub-tasks to identify the specific areas that suit their inclination. A wiki has a very hard time doing that - harder still making it easy to edit whilst retaining the structure. > But as > Thiemo states that might be too much for the number of people that is > involved in the project up to date > > And for anonymous access, i would prefer to use Wiki pages. Access is the critical problem here. Planner was only an experiment. I like the idea of using such a tool but what we need is a more open style of planner - a group-aware planner. Trac does have a RoadMap feature, see: http://trac.edgewall.org/roadmap and adds iCal support too, but the roadmap appears too static and is based on "Tickets" which are just bug reports to you and me. (The Trac roadmap is disabled on the Emdebian Trac installation but can be re-enabled.) One question that arises: Do we want a purely online planning tool or a native client that shares data via online protocols? http://www.opengroupware.org/en/applications/tasks/index.html (returns to the problem of overkill) Is there a sane way of using nested levels within the wiki? (Separate pages make it difficult to get an overview, one long page is too big to be manageable.) One area that I want to use in a planner is the lists of Emdebian packages that need to be built or updated. A reorderable hierarchy is very useful here - if a dependency needs an update, that package can be shifted higher up through the list so that people know where to target their efforts. Right now, this list exists only in my head - take it from me, it isn't safe to keep it there long term!! It has proved to be a difficult problem to automate so now I'm looking for a method of recording rather than calculating. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp9X2qatYy37.pgp
Description: PGP signature