[IAEP] [sugar] OLPC's bizarre behaviors
abelits at belits.com
Fri May 23 11:12:11 EDT 2008
Steve Holton wrote:
> You missed a step. ;-)
> The 'what it will be' statement is usually derived from (and guided
> by) the 'what it must be' statement.
> Step 1 (the 'what it must be') is the list of Requirements.
> From the requirements we can dual track derive the possible
> implementations which will meat those requirements and the set of
> tests to ensure the requirements are met. Without the requirements as
> a guide, we get the wild (and distracting) speculation, the missteps,
> deficient features, etc.
> From the requirements we can ask questions like:
> - Is this feature (a touch screen, for example) a requirement?
> - What other features are dependent on this feature?
> - If we decide to remove this requirement, of change fundamental
> intervaces or attributes, who will need to be notified?
> - What other features is this feature dependent upon?
Public participation in discussion about hardware design choices? I
guess, I got so accustomed to the lack of communication, such an idea
didn't enter my mind.
To be fair, I can understand lower expectation of getting good hardware
design from community input rather than software (software developers
already working using open source, hardware designers still tied to
closed development model). So I am not really surprised about hardware
not being discussed, but I see replacement of clear communication with
"evil open source fundamentalists" in favor of CG dog and pony show as
More information about the Devel