david at vaudevillecourt.tv
Sun Oct 3 14:55:02 EDT 2010
On 3 October 2010 17:40, Michael D Mays <michael at michaelsmanias.com> wrote:
> Aside from talking about talking RevMobile here I would think that in
> general discussions about alpha software might need to be somewhat private
> about some things and have more active/visible participation by the
> developers of the software.
Definitely! We' all benefit from RunRev opening up the development dialogue
in a managed way. We'd get a heads up on what was coming and help shape and
fix bugs in the forthcoming product, and RunRev would get a happier
community and less bugs. It cant be done for everything, but it sure could
be done for a lot more things.
A classic example is the On-Rev client. Locking that thing up in a
standalone was completely pointless. Active members of the community could
have rolled their own versions of a client (ie based on an informal API),
that would have been orders of magnitude better than the current offering.
It would not have mattered if this API moved fast (it hasn't anyway), nor
would it matter if they withdrew the API / charged for it / locked things
down afterwards (as long as we knew this was a possibility up front).
We can only hope that this old-school business logic is replaced by a saner
cooperation with developers, a saner use of common technologies to integrate
the various lists, forums, and bug tracking, and an intelligent use of open
content licensing for some of the IDE components.
More information about the Use-livecode