On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 17:11:49 +0100, Martin Schlander wrote:
That is exactly what was on the openSUSE wiki frontpage for years.
It was bad then, and it's even worse now, because "usable" is either just an empty phrase that can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean, or it means "Aunt Tillie distro" - which we have spent months establishing is a bad fit for openSUSE and doesn't reflect reality.
I don't entirely disagree with this, but I don't entirely agree with it either. I think from the standpoint of a "mission statement", this is nice and concise. What's important when you put a mission statement together, though, is that it be followed by definitions that help the reader understand what is meant if the language isn't clear (though ideally, that would be self-evident - in some cases that is easy to do, in others - like ours - I think it's less easy to do because of the complexity of what we're talking about). I think that's something I haven't entirely seen conveyed in the strategy discussion (though I got busy and have missed some of the discussion over the past few weeks). Questions that a definition for "usable" needs to answer are: * For Whom? (ie, who is the target audience?) * How will we achieve that goal? * How will we measure our success in this area? There are probably other questions that it should answer as well. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org