org mode vs basecamp

org mode vs basecamp

[cezar]

Hello,

  I was curios if there is a way to use org mode as a project management
  and collaboration tool.

  Here is a cool web app that does this:
  www.basecamphq.com

Regards,
Cezar

Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Bastien]

Hi Cesar,

cezar@mixandgo.ro writes:

>   I was curios if there is a way to use org mode as a project
>   management and collaboration tool.

As for the "project management" part, it's quite obvious to me that Org
qualifies, at least for 90% of the core functions that are needed to be
a "project management tool" (see the recent discussion on dependencies.)

But I guess the important side of your question is: can I use Org as a
*collaboration* tool?

Well -- please do :)

1. One idea is to put an Org file on a CVS server, letting people check
   it in and out, so that everybody knows what he has to-do and what is
   the state of the project.

2. Another idea is to give someone the responsability to maintain an Org
   file dispatching to-do list items through the team, displaying clear
   deadlines, tasks status, etc.

3. The third idea is to let a web interface directly operate changes on
   underlying Org files. I think this is achievable: Org files are text,
   but with a reasonable set of conventions to format them we could edit
   them through another tool.  
   
   I don't think such a tool exist right now, but that would actually be
   fun.

>   Here is a cool web app that does this:
>   www.basecamphq.com

What PM/collaborative features do you have in this that you would like
to see in Org? 

-- 
Bastien

Re: org mode vs basecamp

[cezar]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> 3. The third idea is to let a web interface directly operate changes on
>    underlying Org files. I think this is achievable: Org files are text,
>    but with a reasonable set of conventions to format them we could edit
>    them through another tool.  
>    
>    I don't think such a tool exist right now, but that would actually be
>    fun.

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 !

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).

>
>>   Here is a cool web app that does this:
>>   www.basecamphq.com
>
> What PM/collaborative features do you have in this that you would like
> to see in Org? 
>

Ok, here it goes:

Things org-mode allready has:

1. TODO's 

2. Deadlines

3. Manage different projects with ease.


Things that are not there (or are not obvious):

1. Collaboration 

2. Comments (blog style)

3. Attachments (various projects need different files)

4. Views (client view / company view)

5. Assignment ( this task is for NEO )

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

Cheers,
Cezar

Re: Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Bastien]

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

Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Stefan Kamphausen]

Hi,

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> But I guess the important side of your question is: can I use Org as a
> *collaboration* tool?
>
> Well -- please do :)
>
> 1. One idea is to put an Org file on a CVS server, letting people check
>    it in and out, so that everybody knows what he has to-do and what is
>    the state of the project.
>
> 2. Another idea is to give someone the responsability to maintain an Org
>    file dispatching to-do list items through the team, displaying clear
>    deadlines, tasks status, etc.
>
> 3. The third idea is to let a web interface directly operate changes on
>    underlying Org files. I think this is achievable: Org files are text,
>    but with a reasonable set of conventions to format them we could edit
>    them through another tool.  
>    

in my mind lives another idea which is close to your #3: use a wiki as
a backend (currently I'm thinking about oddmuse).

- Write an extension to oddmuse which displays org-syntax as HTML.
  Has to be written in Perl, probably could reuse lots of regexps from
  org.el. A really fancy extension would render checkboxes and the
  like, but I don't know whether this is achievable.
- Instead of find-file and save-buffer one could use oddmuse-edit and
  oddmuse-post from [1].
- Setup auto-mode-alist to set org-mode when opening such a wikipage,
  or put a -*-modeline into the wikipages

One of the benefits is that the other collaborateurs would not have to
use emacs (which they don't in my case), they would "just" have to
write the correct wiki-syntax.  Publishing, history, user-tracking,
remote-access, etc. all comes for free.


I'll try to find some time during the next weeks to start with the
oddmuse-extension, but I can't see when that will happen.  It has to
fill the time-slots when they come up ;-)


Kind Regards
Stefan

Footnotes: 
[1]  http://www.emacswiki.org/cgi-bin/wiki/OddmuseMode

-- 
Stefan Kamphausen --- http://www.skamphausen.de
a blessed +42 regexp of confusion (weapon in hand)
You hit. The format string crumbles and turns to dust.

Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Stefan Kamphausen]

Hi,

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> I've not been using the OddMuse wiki engine for a long time now, and I
> don't know how difficult such a backend would be to write, but I think
> this is an *excellent* idea.

Encouraging. :-)

Regards
Stefan
-- 
Stefan Kamphausen --- http://www.skamphausen.de
a blessed +42 regexp of confusion (weapon in hand)
You hit. The format string crumbles and turns to dust.

Re: org mode vs basecamp

[cezar]

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

Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Bastien]

Stefan Kamphausen <skampi@gmx.net> writes:

>> 3. The third idea is to let a web interface directly operate changes on
>>    underlying Org files. I think this is achievable: Org files are text,
>>    but with a reasonable set of conventions to format them we could edit
>>    them through another tool.  
>
> in my mind lives another idea which is close to your #3: use a wiki as
> a backend (currently I'm thinking about oddmuse).
>
> - Write an extension to oddmuse which displays org-syntax as HTML.
>   Has to be written in Perl, probably could reuse lots of regexps from
>   org.el. A really fancy extension would render checkboxes and the
>   like, but I don't know whether this is achievable.
> - Instead of find-file and save-buffer one could use oddmuse-edit and
>   oddmuse-post from [1].
> - Setup auto-mode-alist to set org-mode when opening such a wikipage,
>   or put a -*-modeline into the wikipages

I've not been using the OddMuse wiki engine for a long time now, and I
don't know how difficult such a backend would be to write, but I think
this is an *excellent* idea.

> I'll try to find some time during the next weeks to start with the
> oddmuse-extension, but I can't see when that will happen.  It has to
> fill the time-slots when they come up ;-)

Good luck!  :)

-- 
Bastien

Re: Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Bastien]

cezar@mixandgo.ro writes:

> Hmmm this idea just hit me : How about using ICS files ?

Yes, you can digg its specs here:

  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2445.txt

Then you'll see things like:

  ORGANIZER:MAILTO:jane_doe@host1.com
  ATTENDEE:MAILTO:john_public@host2.com

which might be added to Org[1] so that an .org file can be exported in
.ics and so that this .ics resource can be useful as a shared resource
for collaboration.  You can already use it like this (i do), but maybe
some other keywords (like the two above) would be nice to have.

> I am not too familiar with them but I think they pretty much do what I
> need !?

But the .ics solution still requires that you answer this question: who
is able to edit the .org source file(s)? 

Notes: 
[1]  I'm not sure this as to be native in Org.  Maybe an option saying
     what property of en entry should be exported to a .ics keyword is
     needed at some point.

-- 
Bastien

Re: org mode vs basecamp

[cezar]

Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:

> which might be added to Org[1] so that an .org file can be exported in
> .ics and so that this .ics resource can be useful as a shared resource
> for collaboration.  You can already use it like this (i do), but maybe
> some other keywords (like the two above) would be nice to have.

I think we can allready export to ics ! I remember doing it. In the
agenda view.

>
>> I am not too familiar with them but I think they pretty much do what I
>> need !?
>
> But the .ics solution still requires that you answer this question: who
> is able to edit the .org source file(s)? 
>
> Notes: 
> [1]  I'm not sure this as to be native in Org.  Maybe an option saying
>      what property of en entry should be exported to a .ics keyword is
>      needed at some point.

Maybe scan todo.ics at start time ? to see if anything was added.

An ics file could also be populated by either a custom app or google
calendar ir any other app that understands ics.

Re: Re: org mode vs basecamp

[Bastien]

cezar@mixandgo.ro writes:

> Bastien <bzg@altern.org> writes:
>
>> which might be added to Org[1] so that an .org file can be exported in
>> .ics and so that this .ics resource can be useful as a shared resource
>> for collaboration.  You can already use it like this (i do), but maybe
>> some other keywords (like the two above) would be nice to have.
>
> I think we can allready export to ics ! I remember doing it. In the
> agenda view.

Sorry I didn't express myself very well.  

Of course Org already know how to export an .org file to .ics.  My point
was: if you want to use the ouput .ics file as a basis for collaboration
then you might want that Org export keywords like ATTENDEE in the .ics
file.  

As I added in the footnote, I think the set of properties that Org will
export for each iCal entry should be customizable, because people might
have different properties for the same .ics keywords, or might want to
skip keywords that are not relevant to their use of the .ics file.

>> [1]  I'm not sure this as to be native in Org.  Maybe an option saying
>>      what property of en entry should be exported to a .ics keyword is
>>      needed at some point.
>
> Maybe scan todo.ics at start time ? to see if anything was added.

No, this is not what I mean.  I was saying that the set of keywords
(those necessary to use the .ics file as a basis for collaboration)
should not be rigid, if such keywords are to be implemented someday.

I was not speaking about something that already exists.

But maybe what i said will be clearer if you try to use the .ics file
for collaboration.   Don't forget to make a tutorial of how successful
you were in doing this :)

-- 
Bastien