Differences between revisions 2 and 3
Revision 2 as of 2005-12-05 16:47:27
Size: 1039
Editor: mskresolve-b
Comment:
Revision 3 as of 2005-12-05 16:57:47
Size: 3061
Editor: mskresolve-b
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 23: Line 23:

== Idea 2: Create Development Coordinators ==

Total Number of Votes: 6

Summary:
  * Partition and assign rotating responsibility for development areas.
  * "Development coordinators" will be tasked with centralizing and facilitating communication between areas.
  * Posts held for 1-2 years.
  * May need one top-level coordinator to arbitrate development coordinators and cover misc. tasks.

== Idea 3: Be Clear About Use-Cases and Long-Term Vision ==

Total Number of Votes: 4

Summary:
  * Implement a process for defining use-cases, and building comunity consensus.
  * Adopt a Mozilla-like process for development to reach these goals.
  * Implement this for 2.3; maybe not possible for long-term vision.

== Idea 4: Adopt a more Systematic Development Process ==

Total Number of Votes: 3

Summary:
  * User requirements gathering (talk to our users more)
  * Technical specs and documentation
  * Coding
  * Testing
  * User Feedback
  * Documentation for the end-user

== Idea 5: Create a new Project Coordinator / Architect ==

Total Number of Votes: 1

Summary:
  * Full-time position
  * Central contact for both developers and users.
  * Authority to make decisions, but answerable to core developers, PIs, and community.
  * Must know the code.

== Idea 6: User-Driven Functionality ==

Total Number of Votes: 1

Summary:
  * Solicit feedback from biological users in outreach efforts (e.g. external demos, tutorials) in a systematic form, as follows:
    * ask a structured set of questions, including, "Why are you using the software?", "Can you perform this function now?", and so forth.
    * ask if users would be willing to weigh in again 6 months later.
  * Have a designated Cytostaffer whose role is to assess feedback and identify key functionality to address major concerns, and works closely with core developerrs to communicate and track targeted developments.
  * Track development efforts on the wiki, and open it up to users.

About this Document

This document summarizes the results of the RFC 2 discussion during the 2005 Cytoscape Retreat.

  • Section 1 documents the final group ideas. Ideas which garnered the most ideas are shown first.
  • Section 2 document individual ideas from Cytoscape retreat attendees.

Section 1: Final Group Ideas

Idea 1: Gather Feedback from Cytoscape Users

Total Number of Votes: 6

Summary:

  • Cytoscape has thousands of users. We should develop a feedback and information gathering mechanism for this large user base.
  • Feature prioritization should be based on user feedback.
  • Display statistics on the Cytoscape site about most liked, wanted, and disliked features.
  • Organize user meetings, perhaps in combination with another meeting users might attend.
  • Provide easy mechanism to make feature requests, submit new ideas.
  • Create a User FAQ
  • Create a User Q&A forum online for new users (Cytoscape discuss seems very programmer oriented)

  • Conduct user survey.

Idea 2: Create Development Coordinators

Total Number of Votes: 6

Summary:

  • Partition and assign rotating responsibility for development areas.
  • "Development coordinators" will be tasked with centralizing and facilitating communication between areas.
  • Posts held for 1-2 years.
  • May need one top-level coordinator to arbitrate development coordinators and cover misc. tasks.

Idea 3: Be Clear About Use-Cases and Long-Term Vision

Total Number of Votes: 4

Summary:

  • Implement a process for defining use-cases, and building comunity consensus.
  • Adopt a Mozilla-like process for development to reach these goals.
  • Implement this for 2.3; maybe not possible for long-term vision.

Idea 4: Adopt a more Systematic Development Process

Total Number of Votes: 3

Summary:

  • User requirements gathering (talk to our users more)
  • Technical specs and documentation
  • Coding
  • Testing
  • User Feedback
  • Documentation for the end-user

Idea 5: Create a new Project Coordinator / Architect

Total Number of Votes: 1

Summary:

  • Full-time position
  • Central contact for both developers and users.
  • Authority to make decisions, but answerable to core developers, PIs, and community.
  • Must know the code.

Idea 6: User-Driven Functionality

Total Number of Votes: 1

Summary:

  • Solicit feedback from biological users in outreach efforts (e.g. external demos, tutorials) in a systematic form, as follows:
    • ask a structured set of questions, including, "Why are you using the software?", "Can you perform this function now?", and so forth.
    • ask if users would be willing to weigh in again 6 months later.
  • Have a designated Cytostaffer whose role is to assess feedback and identify key functionality to address major concerns, and works closely with core developerrs to communicate and track targeted developments.
  • Track development efforts on the wiki, and open it up to users.

RFC_2/Part_2 (last edited 2009-02-12 01:03:03 by localhost)

Funding for Cytoscape is provided by a federal grant from the U.S. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) of the Na tional Institutes of Health (NIH) under award number GM070743-01. Corporate funding is provided through a contract from Unilever PLC.

MoinMoin Appliance - Powered by TurnKey Linux