Re: [Fwd: Re: [Gnumed-devel] Vision and implications: Strategic planning]

[Karsten Hilbert]

On Sun, Dec 18, 2005 at 08:44:58PM +0800, Richard Hosking wrote:

> I thought it might be a useful exercise at this stage in Gnumed's 
> development to look at the characteristics of some projects that are 
> widely acknowledged as ?successful? and apply these to Gnumed.
Yes.

> I have done a brief (3hr) Google search on ?successful Open Source 
> projects?.
Thanks.

>  1.
> 
>     *Most OSS projects fail*
> 
>     90-95% of all startups disappear
Fall into oblivion. True.

>  2.
> 
>     *Of the projects studied, all arose out of a need to improve a
>     current program*
> 
>     Apache, Mozilla and Sendmail all arose from the need to improve a
>     current program. Hence a working ?prototype? was available. It
>     appears difficult to generate community interest without anything
>     to work on. It could be argued that Gnumed 0.1 is a prototype,
>     even though it has only minimal functionality.
If GNUmed 0.1 would serve as the prototype from which GNUmed
1.0 arose out of the need to improve it it would have been
worth it more than enough. This is like ESR said that a
"minimal body of working code" needs to come into existence
*somehow* -- often written by a single programmer even.

Also, the current programs to improve are there ! This
applies to pretty much all the existing commercial packages
which are in dire need for improvement.

>  4.
> 
>     *Most OSS developers are users*
> 
>     As such, they understand the ?domain? the software is to work in,
>     and have a clear idea of (at least their own) ?user requirements?.
That's the case with GNUmed, pretty much exactly.

>     This appears to me to be a major problem for Gnumed ? while the
>     developers are medical, there is divergence on what functionality
>     the program should provide as a minimum.
I don't think there really is too much divergence here if
everyone is sincere. There will surely be differences in at
what level GNUmed can realistically be considered *useful*
in any given country. However, minimal functionality should
be a functional, medical need. Life teaches that competition
isn't necessarily the route that leads to greatest happiness
even though it promises the greatest gains and (short-term
?) satisfactions.

>     Most potential long term
>     users will not contribute to development as happens in many OSS
>     projects
No different in GNUmed.

>  6.
> 
>     *Users who are knowledgeable contribute to identifying and fixing
>     bugs*
> 
>     Approximately 10 times as many users as ?core? developers supplied
>     fixes and many more again identified bugs and tested software
> 
> In summary I see the problems for Gnumed as "user requirements" and 
> sheer technical feasibility with the current resources of a very complex 
> software suite. It could be equated to the complexity of Mozilla
Hence we started out with the less complex things.

> Does anyone want this (or more) posted to the Wiki?
Yes. Please work with Jim on that angle.

Karsten
-- 
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346