Yahoo! Messenger: Conference ffwguy-9242 started.
Yahoo! Messenger: johnabbott has joined the conference.
ffwguy: Ok, sorry, one Steve anyway
steve_southwell: hola!
johnabbott: Howdy
johnabbott: 
steve_southwell: Hey John...
johnabbott: Sorry guys, I keep forgetting this meeting without an email early in the day.
ffwguy: Only the other Steve is left.
ffwguy: Sounds like the email reminder should be a regular thing. 
steve_southwell: Each week, I keep thinking that the following week I'm gonna actually get some FFW work done...
steve_southwell: And each week, I get just enough client work to string me along and stay busy.
ffwguy: Each week, I keep thinking some one will give me some FFW work to do. 
steve_southwell: So I really don't have much to report.
johnabbott: OK, let's EAT!
steve_southwell: Well, Geoff, that's the beauty of SourceForge...
ffwguy: I'd be happy to do some reviews of stuff in the pipe line.
steve_southwell: You can just grab what you want and start churning.
ffwguy: Even if you might be working on one of those at the same time?
Yahoo! Messenger: steve_lichtenberg has joined the conference.
ffwguy: I would think we need to do a little coordination?
ffwguy: OK, we're all here now.
steve_southwell: Well, I do have some of the core FFW stuff "tore up" at the moment.
steve_southwell: I went and tried re-arranging all the directories and such so that you can just toss it in your propath and it works without a bunch of hocus-pocus.
ffwguy: So if I did something we'd have a problem right? Tell us what kind of stuff "tore" up.
steve_southwell: But I never got finished.
steve_southwell: Well, I'd say that if you sent me something, I'd probably be able to just change the include-file refs and stick it right in.
steve_southwell: But I guess I need to do another check-in.
steve_southwell: OK, you're right... You got me.
steve_southwell: smtpmail.p could use help though, and it's stand-alone.
ffwguy: Include-file refs? I think we definitely need to understand how it's setup.
ffwguy: Sorry, I'll pass on smtpmail.p, I'm not a fan of it.
steve_lichtenberg: Did I miss something? I feel like I walked into the middle of this movie.
ffwguy: I sent JA the message I got back from Karen Koberlein. Seems it's still full steam ahead on the same ICF Web path.
ffwguy: No Steve L - you missed nothing.
steve_lichtenberg: Geoff- you talked about PSC delaying that project until summer. Anything more?
ffwguy: I heard summer via JA. I got this back from karen koberlein - doesn't seem like that at all now:
ffwguy: Geoff,

We are currently preparing some specifications for comment and review.
These will be posted to POSSE as soon as they are in a form that the
community could understand and comment on. I believe that you have the
Dynamics WebSpeed document that I wrote. The specifications that are
currently being prepared are very much in line with that document.

I'm sorry I don't have more information to offer you right now. I hope
this helps. This project is still very much a high priority for PSC.

Karen


ffwguy: I suppose it could still be summer, but this freight train appears left from the station.
ffwguy: I was wondering since most folks have decided not to comment on the document, if maybe we might put together something that we'd all put our names to. It just seems to me that we are missing an opportunity by not commenting.
steve_southwell: Which document?
ffwguy: The ICF Web strategy document
steve_lichtenberg: I'll go for something like that. If the community puts something together collectively, I would think it might have more weight.
ffwguy: I'm just thinking of a way I could actually get you guys to put your two cents in and thought that might be easier. I'm afraid at this point that my word alone may get dismissed as simply another SO/ICF naysayer.
steve_southwell: I'm still trying to find the document in question...
steve_lichtenberg: I like something from the FFW board though....
ffwguy: We could do that.
steve_southwell: It was a word doc, right?
ffwguy: Yes.
ffwguy: IZ 3810
steve_southwell: Doesn't exist.
ffwguy: Oops, IZ 3180. Lessadixia of the fingers.
steve_southwell: Ah... I remember looking at this.
steve_lichtenberg: Geoff-- you also talked about us going ahead anyway and doing our own thing on this. Any more thoughts there?
johnabbott: Please paste link here.
ffwguy: Steve L - if PSC is so gung ho we'd just be butting heads. We can do that, but it works so much better if we had the opportunity to really be a part of it.
ffwguy: And vice versa.
steve_southwell: http://www.possenet.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3180
ffwguy: http://www.possenet.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3180
steve_lichtenberg: I agree but, this freight train is heading for a wreck.
steve_southwell: Geoff, I don't really think anything about it, other than:
steve_southwell: "I'll believe it when I see it" and...
steve_southwell: "Let's see if it stands up to my security tests.".
ffwguy: Steve S - you should remember looking at it, the last meeting we had you said you rather spend time working on a client than post a comment on it.
ffwguy: It's not just that Steve S - but it's restricted to only IE 5+ and nothing else.
steve_southwell: Here's my comment, Geoff:
steve_lichtenberg: Steve --- Is this a case of if you ignore it, maybe it will go away?
steve_southwell: They can strike 2.2.2, because it's a waste of time, and no serious WEB developers will use it.
steve_southwell: 2.2.1 - Good Luck!
ffwguy: It misses the whole point of .Net (and ONE) and it's "two" solutions are actually only one since it does *nothing* for the main stream current WebSpeed apps.
steve_southwell: 2.2.3 is a nice goal, but it will be tricky to do because
steve_southwell: they'll tend to oversimplify and the security piece will be useless, or...
ffwguy: I just had to take some time to get the doc myself. Their answer to 2.2.1 of course is that this is what AppLogic has already done for them.
steve_southwell: They'll make it too complicated and interrelated with the rest of Dynamics, and nobody will take the time to learn it.
ffwguy: That brings up a point I can now make. I investigated what it would take to pull out those managers and put them into the existing product. It's definitely going to take quite a bit.
ffwguy: For one thing the originals were all SO interdependent. They all required SDO's and no alternative.
ffwguy: Now there appears to be an effort to get rid of that, but it's not done.
ffwguy: The security piece is the one most dependent on SO's and it well interwoven with everything else.
steve_lichtenberg: Well according to PSC EVERYONE should be using SDO's
ffwguy: Splitting those out is going to be a real effort.
ffwguy: And what you don't Steve? 
steve_lichtenberg: I did once. That was too many times 
steve_southwell: John, do you use them with web development?
johnabbott: Not unless I'm told to.
ffwguy: At least I can cut and paste some of the comments here to send back to Karen. What should we consider as a response? (assuming we're going to send one collectively)
johnabbott: Not a real big deal either way in my opinion, esp. if the SDO is already written.
steve_southwell: I can't say I've EVER even looked at one.
steve_lichtenberg: There is a lot of overhead in the SDO structure thought. On the web, there is certainly a performance penalty.
johnabbott: I just wonder what it would take to develop a real Internet application in it...
steve_southwell: Used to could get away with some performance hit due to lag, but look at sites like google now...
johnabbott: the Dynamics style just doen't look like a web app.
steve_lichtenberg: It's not. It is a WINDOWS APP....
johnabbott: THAT'S IT!
ffwguy: That's because the folks that wrote it never wrote a web app, so they needed to turn Windows apps into web ones. AppLogic is even more of that.
ffwguy: After all, all apps are made of viewers, browsers, and tab folders, right?
steve_southwell: Of course... And every object is either a maintenance screen, or a maintenance screen.
johnabbott: It's like slamming a chui app on Windows. Doesn't look/work right ever.
johnabbott: Good point Steve, it will work just fine for maintenance screens.
steve_southwell: likes the idea of "slamming" apps through windows.
steve_southwell: Maybe what we could all do is tally up all of the webobjects we've ever written...
steve_southwell: And classify them by type and use.
ffwguy: So getting back to it again ....... What would we all like to do about it then?
steve_southwell: Ask that they commit to building a REAL live public webapp on it prior to releasing it. And they must NOT use the sports database.
steve_southwell: Let them build a new issuezilla with it.
steve_lichtenberg: Can;t do it. PSC doesn;t know how to write that kind of app......
steve_southwell: Per does. (I think)
johnabbott: they need to hire a contractor!
steve_southwell: I'll recommend you, John.
steve_lichtenberg: Well, one or two people there can.
ffwguy: Steve, I've seen some applications that have come out of some others though and it's not pretty. We just redid the simplest little app that they did with all Wizard code and our revisions redid the whole thing for 1/4 of the price they paid PSC.
ffwguy: I still can't seem them hiring a contractor either, they've been advertizing the position for employees on the PEG.
steve_southwell: Anyhow, what I would say is this:
steve_southwell: Lets offer our help in testing the thing with real-life webapps.
steve_southwell: Ask them to commit to giving us some time to look at the finished product before they run with it.
johnabbott: They need help BEFORE that.
steve_lichtenberg: won;t work. that is what beta is for. Then it is too late.
ffwguy: I have no problem with offering to help test, that's very constructive. But from talking with them, there is no way they will commit to holding absolutely anything up. This is so late and so high priority they are ready to do anything to get any solution at all in my opinion.
steve_southwell: But they won't take help before that, and they won't believe us when we tell them what gotcha's they're gonna face.
ffwguy: And I too have to say, we should offer to get involved way before that to get them on a reasonable track.
steve_lichtenberg: TRAIN WRECK! 
steve_southwell: IMHO, it's gonna take a serious publicly exploited security hole before they wise up.
steve_lichtenberg: we can easily find that but what will we gain by it? We need to be constructive some how.
steve_southwell: My other concern is whether a Web-only person, such as myself will be able to pick this up and learn it.
steve_southwell: Will I have to again futz with pseudo-widgets and junk, ala mapped-webobjects?
johnabbott: I had hoped they would bring some of us in to put together something that will work. We can do it fast.
steve_lichtenberg: Interesting point. All the rest of us are 4GL guys first.
steve_southwell: Or will they just publish some API's and I can shove session and security data in them and turn the crank?
steve_lichtenberg: not this go round, Steve.
steve_southwell: So let me get this straight...
steve_lichtenberg: JA -- we have discussed exactly that many times. How do we go about it?
ffwguy: I agree Steve L. We need to be constructive. And having some neat API's would be nice, but the current stuff is not that easy. The security is really off the beaten track - you are require to have a very specific user/group/corporate entity setup.
steve_southwell: You'll probably have to be a GUI programmer in order to understand SO's, which you need in order to understand Dynamics, which you'll have to understand in order to learn the web hook-ins to dynamics?
steve_lichtenberg: Most programmers out in the world already have some type of security built into their app. how is PSC proposing to tie those together.
steve_southwell: Sounds to me like they don't want anyone even remotely expert on web systems coming near this stuff.
steve_southwell: Good question, Steve.
steve_lichtenberg: NO, Steve -- SO's are actually more basic than that. They "technically" have no UI but.... There is an awful lot of awful code out there.,
johnabbott: So how do we go about it? Send this transcript to Joe?
steve_southwell: Sounds crazy, but yes, I think the transcript would give better insight than us trying to articulate a specific answer to the document.
ffwguy: Steve L- no one is promising to tie anything at all together. That's the real issue with that document. If you have something already you simply get some "managers" available to you that basically you've already got. The real thing this promises is in the other direction - if you already built with Dynamics, you get a web app just like that. 
ffwguy: But I don't think Joe is the right person to give it to. 
steve_southwell: No!
steve_southwell: Not Joe! 
ffwguy: Karen and Anthony would probably be the ones.
ffwguy: Back towards where we were headed before anyway.  The usual things just don't seem to work as far as getting us all involved. Have we considered writting up our own document instead?
ffwguy: Or is this too much work not knowing if PSC will simply go right ahead no matter what we do.
steve_lichtenberg: Interesting analogy. The "managers" you get, get you no where. Maybe that should be part of the response. Current development efforts will not support the project as written. These things already exist in the world.
steve_lichtenberg: If PSC is promoting yet another rewrite, which is as it sounds, there will be a major revolt in the developer community.
ffwguy: Well Steve L, that's been my point all along. Not just the managers, but the fact that you absolutely must be restricted to specific browsers as well which no one can really do.
steve_southwell: I think we could work a document of strategy for unifying some "manager"-like components of FFW. We could start with specs for the specs, such as:
steve_southwell: Must be developed by web developers.
steve_southwell: Must work on internet as well as intranet/extranet (and so forth)
ffwguy: Steve L - I don't know whether it's a "revolt", I think its more a matter of ignoring it if that's what it requires. One of the most interesting things I want to see in six months is how many people actually buy Dynamics. It's not in the core product and you have to buy something on top of it, so there will be real sales numbers to check.
steve_lichtenberg: it seems though that this whoile project is going to happen from PSC's perspective and nothing we say will stop that. Maybe we need an "I told you so" type approach. Watch this thing fall to pieces and then step in with a product that really works and allow PSC to save face with it.
ffwguy: One of the other things I also should remind myself to do is to go back to the original ICF design spec and see if it's met.
steve_lichtenberg: doubtful.
ffwguy: Well that's one approach Steve L, and it's one of the things we need to consider.
ffwguy: I like the idea of putting together some more of the FFW pieces as well, and the web execution thing has got some of that ready to go.
steve_lichtenberg: then what?? 
johnabbott: Seems like way to late. It takes a long time for them to abandon something, even Apptivity.
steve_southwell: Then we release FFW 2.0 and take over the world!!! MUahahahahaha!!!!
ffwguy: It's got the "manager manager" thing the way it was supposed to have been done from their specs. It's also got a universal TT loader the way it was supposed to have been done.
steve_southwell: Is that piece ready to post on SF yet, Geoff?
ffwguy: That's sort of my concern JA. If the whole thing basically goes no where, then will there really be a time to be able to pick up the pieces.
johnabbott: A spec for the specs seems like a start. But then put forth an answer: bring us in and give us 6 mos.
steve_lichtenberg: Can we just go to PSC and say look. based on your spec, we already have a product that meets most of them and can build the rest out from that framework very quickly.
ffwguy: Steve S - I can get enough ready to do that. What my project actually conatins needs to
be decided at the moment, so perhaps that's the first thing to do, get it up at FFW first.
johnabbott: THAT'S IT stevel
steve_southwell: I keep saying this every week, but I've got an implementation tonight, and should have some free time in the next 2 weeks.
johnabbott: and the best part is, it doesn't seem to matter what the product is.
ffwguy: Steve L - their spec has got so much other stuff in it, it's not enough to be believable that we have their stuff required. For one thing their spec says about all sorts of SDO's involved and compatibility with the repository .....
ffwguy: Nice idea, but I don't think that's actually the case.
ffwguy: Steve S - since that's a regular thing, then perhaps I can get it started any you can pitch in when ready.
steve_southwell: Eureka...
steve_southwell: I just found a way to articulate something...
steve_southwell: They want to start out with a framework that may or may not work on the web, as long as it's compatible with Dynamics.
steve_lichtenberg: but something to start from. tying SDO's in isn;t that hard if you really want to do it. I have done a littlle of that in trying to learn SDO structure. 
steve_southwell: I think they should start out with something that is KNOWN to work on the web, and then make it work with dynamics. Eh?
johnabbott: I'm sorry, I'm still laughing at section 3 of that doc...
steve_lichtenberg: We need to point out that PSC is working backwards as well.
johnabbott: If you have a WebSpeed app, rewrite an all browser UI...
ffwguy: Here's something I've also been contemplating - let's say even if they go ahead with what ever plans they've got and go their own way. Don't we still want to go ours? If we do then creating our own spec for what we *really* want isn't wasted.
johnabbott: If you have a Dynamics app, just press the button!
steve_southwell: Geoff: 100% agreed.
ffwguy: I also have a suggesting for the way to present it - the doc almost abandons creating a real solution for anything other than the webified GUI app way. So let's propose that this is that other solutiuon.
steve_lichtenberg: Geoff- I agree with you. we really want something that is done right. Why not go ahead and do it.
steve_lichtenberg: keep going. I think we are on to something.
steve_southwell: And we should keep the discussion public on the FFW list.
steve_lichtenberg: good idea, Steve.
steve_southwell: Post this transcript on the website for the first time in ages.
ffwguy: If this is the case, and we're all agreed, then I think the next step is to write a response to Karen and/or to POSSE saying we have such a solution in mind and are proposing to work on it. Then do a call for participation to the world. Basically, I'm saying that the doc leaves open a space that we can occupy. Hopefully if PSC buys into that then we can actually get cross help from them in other areas.
ffwguy: After a call, then write up our spec for that missing piece.
johnabbott: besides, if you want a webified gui app, why not just use the WebClient.
steve_lichtenberg: Isn't that what PSC said at the conference last year?
ffwguy: JA - ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. My exact quote to Anthony!!!
ffwguy: Steve L - yes, but then they got overwhelming feedback that they were getting beat up in the Web area.
steve_lichtenberg: You can't play both sides...
ffwguy: Oracle does. 
johnabbott: feedback from where?
ffwguy: JA - Dave Ireland's heart to heart poll of his customers.
ffwguy: I really like Dave doing that, it was a real good sign I saw from him. Problem is old methods inside the company die hard.
johnabbott: Is Dave Ireland the right place to go then?
johnabbott: State the problem and propose us as a 6 mo. solution.
steve_southwell: Well... 6 weeks maybe. 
steve_lichtenberg: if that is all you do for 6 weeks. Some of us have to earn a living.
johnabbott: So, how long would it take?
ffwguy: No JA, I don't think so. I believe he would simply delegate. I believe the first thing is to take it to the Karen's and Anthony's first. If *they* aren't interested, then go to the POSSE folks that  believe in giving some outside folks a chance. And then if that doesn't work, then
Ireland possibly.
steve_southwell: I think JA's talking about going up there.
steve_lichtenberg: but we also need to be working on our spec at the same time.
johnabbott: Geoff, I agree with the three step plan.
steve_southwell: We can't forget that there is also a slight chance that one or both of Me and Geoff may end up on the CRT next week.
ffwguy: That almost sounds like a vote.
steve_southwell: That would help our cause.
johnabbott: Yes, I think we need to go up there (under contracts) and get it started at least.
steve_lichtenberg: let call it one and go.
steve_southwell: Agreed on the 3 step.
ffwguy: The CRT make up should not deter or give us impetus hopefully. If we can produce a product that will work, we shoud do it regardless.
ffwguy: I'm close enough that I could campain up there on my own first if necessary. And JA, there's every chance that no contract is going to be forth coming. If either of Anthony or Karen says no, a contract is probably totally out of the question.
steve_southwell: Well, we've gone on pretty long here...
steve_southwell: Lets gets some motions on the table.
steve_southwell: 1. Move to clean up and post this transcript.
steve_lichtenberg: then we agree. Make our proposal to Karen and Anthony. Develop our own spec/product and invite the community to participate in all of this.
steve_lichtenberg: second that.
steve_southwell: yes
ffwguy: I'll put the transacript up on the web site. After that then we need to talk about the reponse
we want to write. I can start with a draft if you'd like.
ffwguy: I vote yes as well.
steve_lichtenberg: aye
johnabbott: yes.
ffwguy: The response should be a heads up that we'll write a more formal spec.
steve_lichtenberg: good start.
steve_southwell: 2. Move what Geoff just said.
steve_lichtenberg: repeat it.
ffwguy: Then the formal spec afterwards. The initial response should go into the reasons why we want to present a spec, and also what our plans are.
johnabbott: yes
steve_southwell: Yes.
ffwguy: Steve L: I think the repeat is of: "The response should be a heads up that we'll write a more formal spec."
steve_lichtenberg: agree then
steve_southwell: Any opposed?
steve_southwell: I think we just passed it then.
ffwguy: Here's another question - I would like to at least start doing alot of this on the POSSE lists. I don't want to keep it a secret. I think if we do it more publically, we get more of an idea of public opinion needs to be discussed.
steve_southwell: We'll have to keep both the FFW and POSSE list informed on some.
ffwguy: To that end, hopefully there will be an initial message to Karen and Anthony, probably Doug cc'd, that we are going to do something, and we're going to post plans on the lists. Then the official response publically, then the spec publically.
johnabbott: G: I don't know if that really does any good. Better to go first in private.
ffwguy: Steve S - yeah, FFW list, POSSE list, PEG POSSE too.
steve_lichtenberg: Can we post the readers digest version of these transcritps.
steve_lichtenberg: We need to make ALL of this discussion a public as possible and distributed to as many interested parties as possible.
ffwguy: Well that's why I said to send a message privately first. We can gauge that reaction and see what happens before we start it publically. If we start private and the answer is no, going public could be seen very negatively.
steve_southwell: True, Geoff, but how long do we wait for response?
steve_lichtenberg: but could push our agenda quite well.
johnabbott: I think that make the PSC folks mad and the hill higher to climb.
ffwguy: Steve L - that has alway been my thought. I believe we lose if we keep it all as private as the ICF has been.
steve_southwell: Well, the FFW list is our own "Turf", so that's not exactly like going "public".
ffwguy: JA - will it if we give them the opportunity to say so first? If they have a problem with it going public then they can say so right away.
steve_lichtenberg: that is what I am thinking. POSSE really isn't any more open than PSC is/was. We should be leading by example.
ffwguy: Steve S - that's not the point. Going public is going public anywhere. It's not about who owns what.
ffwguy: My thought too Steve L.
johnabbott: They won't say no to going public, they can't. But that doesn't mean they don't resent it...
johnabbott: Of course going public later is likely worse.
steve_southwell: I think it will really depend on the style and demeanor of Geoff's writeup. 
ffwguy: JA is right though, we should pay some attention to what PSC may think.
steve_southwell: I trust that Geoff will do it right and not offend too many.
johnabbott: Be sure to NEVER post something they said in private.
ffwguy: Well, I want you guys to all review it first.
steve_southwell: That sounds like a plan. We can all review it and attach our sigs, and Geoff can forward it along and post it.
ffwguy: Steve S - I think that's got to be for the public response for sure. You guys wouldn't want to sign it sight unseen.
johnabbott: If we just become the Loud Bunch, then everyone loses.
ffwguy: Exactly, it's one of the reasons why I wanted to get you guys to post feedback on the doc so I don't get perceived that way.
ffwguy: Yep, I think we're about at a time to start wrapping things up.
steve_lichtenberg: definitely. I am falling asleep at the keys. And I don't sleep.
steve_lichtenberg: not totally. It is just SO much of a different environment that straight C/S
steve_southwell: Can we wrap it up?
ffwguy: Yep.
johnabbott: y
steve_lichtenberg: y
steve_southwell: Alrighty then. I'll talk to y'all later...