Cytoscape Wiki|
Size: 1014
Comment:
|
Size: 1514
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| This is an official Request for Comment (RFC) for "improving the quality of the Cytoscape 2.3 release." RFCs represent one possible mechanism for soliciting feedback for core features / refactoring. For details on RFCs in general, check out the [http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Request+for+Comments&gwp=8&curtab=2222_1&linktext=Request%20for%20Comments Wikipedia Entry: Request for Comments (RFCs)] | This is an official Request for Comment (RFC) for "improving the quality of the Cytoscape 2.3 release." |
| Line 5: | Line 5: |
| RFC #2 is divided in two parts. Part I consists of Ethan's interviews with six Cytoscapers (Trey, Gary, Ben, Allan, Aditya, and Rowan). I had hoped to interview more people before the Cytoscape retreat, but unfortunately didn't have time to get to everybody. Part II consists of ideas which were culled from Ethan's interviews, and are now presented as concrete proposals to the larger group. |
RFC 2 is divided in two parts: * Part I consists of Ethan's interviews with six Cytoscapers (Trey, Gary, Ben, Allan, Aditya, and Rowan). I had hoped to interview more people before the Cytoscape retreat, but unfortunately didn't have time to get to everybody. In Part I, I have done my best to paraphrase people's comments, and I have not indicidated who said what. * Part II consists of ideas which were culled from Ethan's interviews, and are now presented as concrete proposals to the larger group. |
| Line 13: | Line 16: |
|
=== Q1: What do you feel about the quality of the 2.2 release? === ==== Cytosaper #1: ==== "We pushed the release date out too much. We should have coordinated our efforts much earlier; we probably could have done something by August. We could have done a much better job if we had coordinated earlier on. I think this compromised the quality of the chosen feature set. Next time, we need to decide the feature set straight away. Then, do design and implementation in the next 2-3 months, so that we can do a real six month release cycle." "Feature set was based on developer interests, not really based on user's feedback. We need a better mechanism to get more feedback from real users." |
About this Document
This is an official Request for Comment (RFC) for "improving the quality of the Cytoscape 2.3 release."
RFC 2 is divided in two parts:
- Part I consists of Ethan's interviews with six Cytoscapers (Trey, Gary, Ben, Allan, Aditya, and Rowan). I had hoped to interview more people before the Cytoscape retreat, but unfortunately didn't have time to get to everybody. In Part I, I have done my best to paraphrase people's comments, and I have not indicidated who said what.
- Part II consists of ideas which were culled from Ethan's interviews, and are now presented as concrete proposals to the larger group.
Status
This document is under construction.
Part I: The Interviews
Q1: What do you feel about the quality of the 2.2 release?
Cytosaper #1:
"We pushed the release date out too much. We should have coordinated our efforts much earlier; we probably could have done something by August. We could have done a much better job if we had coordinated earlier on. I think this compromised the quality of the chosen feature set. Next time, we need to decide the feature set straight away. Then, do design and implementation in the next 2-3 months, so that we can do a real six month release cycle."
"Feature set was based on developer interests, not really based on user's feedback. We need a better mechanism to get more feedback from real users."
Part II: The Recommendations
Under Construction