Just checking in Martin You say: "Hope you're excited about it as I am!"
Well, maybe not quite as much, possibly cautiously optimistic. But you know what they say about the detail.
--
I'm interested to note that Moodle.org inhabitants are not a 'key stakeholder', but maybe when you say 'completely separate from these forums and the tracker' it is understandable. Maybe with the diagram dealing only with the money connection, not the ideas connection, if you want this to 'work' then you need to talk to people with $$. ie key = has money.
I'll be interested how the priorities choice works: do you get your say dependent on how much money you put in?
This to me is the critical issue with the future.
There have been a lot of comments over the years about bringing about change in Moodle, and what works, and how to do it. I'd note the benefits of the scrum, the sprints the routines of the cycles, the new processes, Michaels work then Marina's on Tracker. etc.
Some random comments about change, mainly from two threads:
- "Perhaps Moodle needs a "bounty" system in which people who want an issue resolved can pool together money that gets paid to whoever resolves the issue."
- "Many many non-core developers are writing quick hacks to do what they want on their systems - or more complex projects, and their work is not really contributing to 'community', and there is huge repetition: seven people all coding the same thing"
- "guaranteeing stuff gets into Moodle' is a socialogical, as well as technical problem"
- M DRart "We don't receive payment for fixing issues"
- "The only way to guarantee something happens in an open source project is to do it yourself. (Or pay someone with the necessary skills to do it.) Doing it involves getting the change through the Moodle review process. In other words, you cannot irresponsibly change something to work the way you want if it makes it worse for other people"
- "The ones with high votes are supposed to get attention first. I honestly can't tell you if this works in practice or, indeed, the stuff that is interesting to developers or someone is willing to pay for get priority. Probably some combination of these"
- "There is a job to hilight ones most worth of consideration. Just producing a good curated list like this increases the chance that these issues get attention"
- "Votes would be OK but how easy is it to even find out what is being tracked as an improvement? Things get hidden away. We're too busy to go hunting through the tracker list"
So, it is a challenge.
It will be interesting to see how the MA goes.
Will it be able to add to the processes MoodleHQ uses to prioritise? Will it help centralise funding currently duplicated by ten institutions (or 100) making the SAME fix? Will it be corporate driven? Will the MA forums be open or closed? Will the roadmap/plan for the way ahead improve? How will this work with Partners? Will it be independent of HQ - if yes, can they pay for a change and get it? Will they ever work on plugin funding?
I wish you well with the consultations guys.
-Derek