Re: org mode vs basecamp

[cezar@mixandgo.ro]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

>
> Before we go further into this discussion, let me raise again a concern
> that many in this list expressed before me: Org should stick to the Unix
> coding principle, i.e. « do one thing and do it well. » Org-mode handles
> to-do lists, and it does it well.
>
> There is no need to make Org a full-fledged project management system;
> but if such a system is able to interact (edit/store) in some way with
> Org's file format, then it's worth to explore this way.
>

You're half right !

When someone needs some tool to get things done it's either ok or move
to the next one. Doing just TODO lists is fine but incomplete for the
bigger picture. I use emacs to code so org-mode is fine cause it right
there and I don't have to start some other agenda app. 

Hmmm this idea just hit me : How about using ICS files ?
I am not too familiar with them but I think they pretty much do what I
need !?

>> Things that are not there (or are not obvious):
>>
>> 1. Collaboration
>
> If you share a file with other people, you can assign a task to someone
> by adding a :Owner: property.
>

What can a simple TAG do ? If the other people don't use ORG. Each user
should only see his tasks.

>> 2. Comments (blog style)
>
> To me the content of an entry looks like "comments".
>
>> 3. Attachments (various projects need different files)
>
> Well, you can do this with links.

You still need a "place" to store them and a way to upload.

>
>> 4. Views (client view / company view)
>
> Aren't sparse-tree/agenda views enough?
>

I am not sure, I just use C-c a a :D

>
> I think the whole issue is not "How to make Org a collaborative tool for
> project management" but rather: "Is it worth trying to implement a web
> application that uses Org format for storing/exchanging information?"
>
> And I don't have any answer to that!
>

I am not sure either. But I do need one :D