Don't get too excited. It's only one small module Jacob Redding wrote. I figured I'm due a misleading headline after Open Flows posted a description of Access Center that claimed...
"These modules will be upgraded to work with Drupal 6 by the end of the year. The overall plan is to merge all code and functionality with Denver's Open Media Project as both systems move to Drupal 7".
Really?!? Seems like you would talk to the other developers working on the project before posting something like that.
I'm not even sure MNN is still using PDF-IDcard, but Leo Kacenjar (who's interning at Civic Pixel) started updating it because it is similar to a feature a nonprofit Civic Pixel is working with wants. The Civic Pixel client wants print friendly mailers, but since there have been several requests to update this module we asked Leo to start by updating PDF-IDcard.
Drupal 6 port of PDF-IDcard module.
We have talked to Forrest about what role, if any, the Open Media Project developers could play in updating and integrating the MNN code with the rest of the Open Media System, but we estimated it would take at least 40 hours just to create an accurate timeline for that project. While some development shops could create that timeline and just eat the cost if the client doesn't go with them, our organization doesn't charge our nonprofit clients enough to spend 40 hours on a project we might not even get. Moving from Drupal 4.7 to 7 isn't a trivial project. Posting misleading hype doesn't really help.
Comments
didn't we discuss this months ago?
I thought this was one of the topics of discussion in our last meeting.
I hope to see the code that is in use at MNN be usable by the larger community. That is not hype. I think that via the time we spent going over what we had and sharing our work with you when you were getting started that we've already shown that we are serious about collaboration and sharing -- let's not forget that a number of the concepts and data models initially created for the MNN project are being used by the Open Media Project (such as the idea of reservation buckets).
I'm annoyed to see you state that our long-term goal of getting our client, MNN, to help fund the integration of their existing system with the Open Media Project is nothing but "misleading hype."
Building collaboration requires not only good communication, but respect and acting a bit less defensive towards those that would like to see collaboration exist.
Our last meeting? When was
Our last meeting? When was that?
There's no doubt that we took the best ideas from not just MNN, but DOM's Drupal 5 work, PEGEvent... as well projects outside of Drupal and PEG. Are you really accusing me of being less than transparent about who we're working with and failing to give credit were it's due?
Here's what I have an issue with... "The current modules will be released within the next month"... posted by ericG - February 17, 2009
That should have been March, right? Conference after conference I heard that the MNN system was going to be available 'next month'. I'm glad you finally have this up and running at MNN and I know there have been issues with the revolving door of people on MNN's side, but telling people that these projects are merging by the end of the year is not true and does not help either project.
You've posted what MNN would like to see in an ideal world as if the developers and station staff working on the Open Media Project support this. I've been very clear with you and MNN about the challenge to doing this and we we decided not to update your 4.7 work for the Open Media Project.
We're not against discussing this, but please don't state that these projects are merging as if it's something you've already discussed with us.
I get that, but you and/or
I get that, but you and/or MNN understand that we have already committed all of our resources through 2009 right?
I can't see how you are going to role MNN's functionality in with our modules without any support from us. We're not just going to blindly accept patches that impact smaller stations that are happy with user driven approach and aren't looking for the MNN specific functionality in the system. There is interest within the beta group for features like userpoint budgeting, but we're not going to build it with a dependency on CiviCRM.
I talked to Forrest last night at our ACM mixer so I think he is clear about this. We're not opposed to talking about merging these projects, but I feel like the communication problem we are having is the same issue we had when the information I sent you detailing why we were not going to build on your 4.7 work was never relayed to MNN. I actually got pulled into a call months later to explain the same thing to MNN's management... who were under the impression that we were still updating that code.
One of things we identified as an issue with previous PEG initiatives is over committing to work beyond your capacity. Everyone seems pretty nice in the public access world (except me, of course) and wants to say yes to everything. We really tried not to do that being very clear with stations that this a "beta", the modules are still in development, and not ready for stations without a developer on staff. The deadline for the install profile that would open this up to additional stations is the end of 2009... which is why it works against us to have you posting that the MNN features will be merged into the Open Media System because they won't.
It didn't help DOM to tell them that MNN's equipment checkout would be ready to roll shortly after they opened their doors. Is it really that hard to understand why someone who isn't involved in the project might be confused by what you posted? If they want a feature from MNN's system and read that the Open Media System install profile is coming by the end of the year AND it will be merged with MNN's, when January rolls around and that doesn't happen that will be just one more group who associates Drupal with empty promises.
We have a really great community working on this project. We are going to be working with most of the group today and tomorrow at PCM. This is not some exclusive club that is conducts meetings behind closed doors... and it is growing. Groups from Humboldt, BVAC, and Philly said they will be coming by PCM today as well.
The door IS open to participate... just not to make statements that may mislead people about what is happening with the project.
User-Driven System vs. Specfic Functionality
I don't know that I can respond to each of the points raised by Kevin and Eric, however I want to state that MNN is (now) extremely committed to a user-driven approach as it upgrades to D6.
Also for the record, as much as I would like to see MNN on D7 as soon as possible, the time line for D7's release necessitates MNN's current planning includes D6 milestones only. The re-architecting will include a D7 roadmap, but it should be clear that upgrading from D6 to D7 will in all liklihood be a subsequent undertaking.
As for the real heart of the matter here, we are going to need a LOT more specific, formal discussion on a road map that maximizes compatibility of the 2 approaches for that to ever become a reality. I'd suggest we start with specific areas, such as MERCI/reservations or metadata (esp. with respect to RDFa) just to name a couple, and block out points of convergence/divergence.
I'd also like to see an instance of OM running on "Crumbine" (MNN's development server) populated with a sample set of MNN data, but at this point it does seem that the respective project development/s has been increasingly divergent just as a matter of fact, irrespective of intentions.
Until we have something in writing articulating points of divergence/convergence and what would be required to quite frankly, unfork the 2 projects, we really only have good intentions without a lot to go on. I am fully committed to putting such an evaluation together but I hope everyone realises it would have to happen soon.