Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

[Tom Vogt <tom lemuria org>]

Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com> wrote:
> > to be honest, I don't have the slightest idea what exactly you mean with
> > "highest/lowest esteem". could you try to get more precise what that means?
> > where are the core demands, where the fringe features?
> 
> "Esteem"  =  A developer would rather have all his apps be Level 1,
>              versus all of the being crappy Level 5's. That is, there
>              is more esteem in 1, than 5.. Not the other way around.
> 	     1 must always be the highest, for future expansion. If
> 	     its not done this way, what means "great" now, will
> 	     end up being "medicore" later. This is a (tm) Bad Idea.
> 	     1 for highest esteem, 5 for lowest is the way to go.

so according to which hard guidelines to we judge an apps level?

no, wait! we don't want to have this list around for the next 25 years to
judge compliance levels. so how can the AUTHOR reliably check his level?


> > also, I don't see "future expansion" as an argument. if the compliance level
> > system is so messed up that we have to introduce whole new levels, the whole
> > thing is probably so broken that it should be dropped.
>  
> Ahhh, but what if new GUI/desktop concepts come along, and people want
> them mandated in the interface? Now what do you do?

if whole new CONCEPTS emerge? rewrite the style guide. there's a limit to
the amount of superspace you can allocate.



> Trust me on this one.. I had this exact same debate when we were working
> on InSight's SG..And it took them a while for them to "get it". :) By the
> time it clicked in their heads what I was talking about, a good 3 days had
> gone by..and this was live, not on a mailing list. :)

I don't mind extension and all. I just say that we should keep the levels
themselves general enough to allow for it. if level one says "there are the
absolut really important things, don't even think about breaking them",
that's a pretty good definition that allows for extension without changing
it.
see what I'm getting at? I want the levels fixed, but the contents
changeable. the same way you can't change the name of your money too often
(three times in a century for germany now with the euro is already taking
flak just because) you shouldn't change the levels just because the contents
changed.



-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
		-- Henry Spencer