Diff for "RFC_2" - Cytoscape Wiki

Differences between revisions 9 and 10

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

-  ← Revision 9 as of 2005-11-28 15:28:03 →
  Size: 1514
  Editor: mskresolve-b
  Comment:
+  ← Revision 10 as of 2005-11-28 15:28:50 →
  Size: 1522
  Editor: mskresolve-b
  Comment:
-Deletions are marked like this.
+Additions are marked like this.
 Line 20:
-"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."
+  *  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."