An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[Philip Van Hoof]

On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 15:50 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:

> Yes although once we have all the requirements we need to consolidate 
> them, deal with anything that conflicts or is not practical and then 
> prioritise them (some of them may be "nice to have" rather than 
> requirements).

I agree

> Our first release should therefore be a subset of the requirements and 
> we will need feedback to get the core stuff right before preceding with 
> the more complex requirements (eg network transparancy, ACL/lockdown etc).

I agree with this. The first versions shouldn't have to include all the
requirements. But a first version should at least support everything
GConf and KConfig are supporting. 

So the expertise of the people who did these projects is very important.

> > I'm cool with that development model. And I'm willing to help with the
> > implementation (coding-role, not leading nor decision-making).
> 
> We will need a leader (a project leader that is) to manage things so I 
> suggest making the most experienced developer the leader.

He (or she) will need to be trusted by all the affected communities. He
(or she) will have to carry a heavy burden with this project. So I'm not
sure there will be many candidates :-). Having a bad project leader will
condemn the project (thats my I'm not a candidate :p).


-- 
Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be
junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com
http://www.pvanhoof.be/