Re: Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Bastien <bzg@altern.org>]

cezar@mixandgo.ro writes:

> I think this what I had in mind, so an emacs addict like me can work
> with other people without them having to learn emacs/org. So a web
> interface to this would ROCK !

I think the easiest way would be to have a database standing between the
Org file(s) and the web interface.  Like this, you would be able to edit 
project either directly from the Org files or through the web interface,
the database being responsible to keep things synchronized.

But this is a lot of work... and i'm not sure .org files can really
breath and live long outside Emacs.

> The basecamp guys did a pretty good job, an you can see some videos on
> their website (don't know if this is doable with org-mode).

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 4. Views (client view / company view)

Aren't sparse-tree/agenda views enough?  

> 5. Assignment ( this task is for NEO )

See my suggestion above.

> 6. (feel free to add your thoughts here) :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!

-- 
Bastien