Re: Future of LedgerSMB: Ideas and RFC

[Luke <..hidden..>]

On Wed, 18 May 2011, Erik Huelsmann wrote:

> From other people's reactions I concluded it's not clear enough
> "what's in it for them". In other words, in what ways does 1.3
> actually contributes to the goals they may be trying to achieve.

For me, from a usability standpoint, the only thing I *know of* that 1.3 
has going for it, is that relationship management functionality.
I have long wanted that, and it would be nice.  The additional security, 
etc., is nice, but for my exact situation, it's not a must-have, since 
everything is limited to a very few maximally trusted people, operating on 
VPNs, on non-public servers.

> > I think the major priorities at this point need to be:
> > 1) ÂGetting 1.3 out the door.
>
> To me, this means being able to develop using the customers model,
> differentiating between companies and people. To John Locke this seems
> to mean the a stable Reconciliation interface. What does this mean to
> others?

1.  Installable by the majority.
2.  All primary features exposed to users, working without significant 
bugs in standard use cases.

That's it.  Everything else is window dressing, fixes, etc., which can be 
added in subversions.

If the features you and John want are there at all, they should work as 
expected from whatever documentation exists.

> probably a good idea to find a mode where releases get only big enough
> to address a small number of specific issues (and the regular bug
> fixes) on the point releases. That might satisfy only a small group of
> current users, but the continued development could easily attract new
> users too. That would be a net benefit.

Y! E! S!  Exactly that.

Luke