On 01/06/2010 08:47 AM, geni wrote:
Did someone just seriously admit that the WMF has been
following a
"It’s done when it’s done" process on this? They are aware that we
have quite an article on that topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem_Forever
I could be wrong about what process was being used before; I had just
assumed based on external observation.
I agree that Duke Nukem Forever is an example of that process failing,
but you can find failure examples for any scheduling approach. In the
Duke Nukem case, assuming the recent Wired article was correct, their
goal was to be radically better than every game existing, which meant
moving the goalposts every time they saw something new and shiny. That
would have broken any scheduling model.
A lot of open source projects work pretty happily on the "it's done when
it's done", so I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with
that approach. To me, it's more a question of which approach best fits
the circumstances.
William