Robert,
> Well that's confrontational...
Well, personally I would have thought it would be obvious why we wouldn't
want corporate supporters participating on this list, but you demanded to
know.
> Let me put it this way, I have an interest in discussing how the kb will
> be integrated into the main websites, but not much interest in
> discussing how exactly its coded up. That said, it sounds like what you
> need to know first is how it will be integrated into the site, and that
> discussion should probably happen here first *before* you go about
> coding something up and have yourselves painted into a corner.
Actually, I see it as:
1) Functionality Requirements (other list)
2) Requirments Related to Integration (this list)
> They can't read the archives? You can't bullet-point it for them?
To be more clear: Techdocs is not a Knowledge Base. The previous tread
discussed re-implementing Techdocs, not a creating a KB, therefore it is
not applicable except in a few details where there's overlap.
> Which is why I am confused. Should we discuss the requirements here
> *first*, and then those interested in coding them up can join the
> project and discuss the details there?
Integration requirements, yes. Functional requirements, no. The
functional requirements should be defined by the people who are actually
going to develop and/or fund the software.
> To do otherwise would seem to add
> an a priori condition that we're going to use geviks kb project as our
> solution before we even have the requirements.
Per my previous e-mail, that's undecided. Please read it again and stop
jumping to conclusions.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco