Comments on: Does highly visible development detract from quality? http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2008/10/15/collaboration-tools/ open source software innovation support centre Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:30:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gary Day » Blog Archive » links for 2008-10-15 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2008/10/15/collaboration-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-174 Gary Day » Blog Archive » links for 2008-10-15 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:19:55 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2008/10/15/collaboration-tools/#comment-174 [...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...] [...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]

]]> By: Steve Lee http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2008/10/15/collaboration-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-173 Steve Lee Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:35:31 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2008/10/15/collaboration-tools/#comment-173 I meant to add that a status indicator or other flow process should help alleviate concerns about incomplete works being treated as authoritative or at least finished. I guess something like the w3c do with candidate recommendations, but even more open. I meant to add that a status indicator or other flow process should help alleviate concerns about incomplete works being treated as authoritative or at least finished. I guess something like the w3c do with candidate recommendations, but even more open.

]]> By: Steve Lee http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2008/10/15/collaboration-tools/comment-page-1/#comment-172 Steve Lee Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:32:34 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2008/10/15/collaboration-tools/#comment-172 Hello Ross, > Some people feel that since OSS Watch are the “authority” on open source issues we ought to hide this kind of investigative work. Absolutely NOT. I'd say if you are to be respected as an authority in (not just *on*) open source issues you simply must do as much as possible in the Open. This is something that impresses me about Mozilla. You want to be a respected voice in the community as well as advising those just dipping a toe in the water as consumers. > Do you think that exposing “in development” materials in this way is a problem? No as long as collaborative resources a clearly identified as such so people can make a quality judgment. I guess wikipedia is a reference for how to deal with problems of quality/vandelism. My personal view is that while letting go is hard to do (perhaps as it goes against ingrained ideas taught since school days, perhaps as something in 'print' seems authoritative) it opens you up to the many eyes (brains) QA effect. I find it telling (exciting) that you find the quality has increased by being open. To go further you could make the wiki the 'live' articles and use a QA process that monitors the recent changes. At least that is what I have done with articles on schoolforge, not that much has happened to them yet to my disappointment. Hello Ross,

> Some people feel that since OSS Watch are the “authority” on open source issues we ought to hide this kind of investigative work.

Absolutely NOT. I’d say if you are to be respected as an authority in (not just *on*) open source issues you simply must do as much as possible in the Open. This is something that impresses me about Mozilla. You want to be a respected voice in the community as well as advising those just dipping a toe in the water as consumers.

> Do you think that exposing “in development” materials in this way is a problem?

No as long as collaborative resources a clearly identified as such so people can make a quality judgment. I guess wikipedia is a reference for how to deal with problems of quality/vandelism. My personal view is that while letting go is hard to do (perhaps as it goes against ingrained ideas taught since school days, perhaps as something in ‘print’ seems authoritative) it opens you up to the many eyes (brains) QA effect. I find it telling (exciting) that you find the quality has increased by being open.

To go further you could make the wiki the ‘live’ articles and use a QA process that monitors the recent changes. At least that is what I have done with articles on schoolforge, not that much has happened to them yet to my disappointment.

]]>