GTT: Announce & Question

[Derek A. Neighbors]

>
>
>I'm just saying that there's room in this world for applications of all
>sorts of different capabilities.  You don't always need the ultimate,
>end-all, be-all program for some simple uses.   You don't need
>the gimp just to view an image. 
>
I think we all agree on that.  I think once you start wanting to 
integrate a time tracker and gnucash you have stepped out of the bounds 
of 'just wanting to track time'.  I think at least for me that was the 
dicussion.  I think just have a time tracker is very valuable.  But just 
a stop watch doesnt provide enough data to MEANINGFULLY do something 
with gnucash. (IMHO)

>Well, SOL. A web solution doesn't help there either.  Unless you're a
>gadget freak, and have a blackberry or something.  Besides, most of us 
>aren't gadget freaks anyway.
>
I agree with this on two levels. I speak from experience where such cost 
based accounting exists.  In office work, programming etc, you can just 
fill in your activities and time spend at end of day.  It need not be a 
'stop watch' in fact a stop watch in this situation often proves 
problematic.  

In our wherehouse we had RF Scanners to scan in product, we retrofitted 
a simple time keeping interface into them.  (thus the gadget)  

>Nah, I dispute that. Someone actually does have to review the actual
>time entries for correctness.  Or you have a policy that they just
>slide. Or you don't care that much.  That no one is being fraudulent.
>etc.
>
If its used for billing it should be reviewed before being sent out. :)

>If its just you, and you are an individual, and you really are billing
>based off of this, then your probably keeping paper or alternate notes
>anyway, since even a small mistake can be expensive.  
>
Well for I think the biggest issue is billable and no billable time. 
Example you agree to do custom programming and budget it at 3 hours.  It 
takes 5 hours, but 2 of those hours were spent reconfiguring apache or 
doing something else.  Now mind you they were necessary.  If you used a 
stopwatch to mark your time you have 5 hours.  You need ablity to say I 
only want to bill for 3 of those hours.

Conversly say you bid 3 hours and you find you are able to get code 
reuse you didnt think you woudl and it only takes you 1 hour.  Do you 
bill for it...

>And if its just you, an individual, practical experience says most people
>don't project-plan.  I never project-planned any of the time I spent on
>gnucash, or the time I spend reading email.  I just do it: 'gee I feel
>like hacking gnucash today', or 'lets check the email', or 'lets eat
>lunch.'
>
Well bad habits dont make for good business. :)  

>On large programming projects (or construction projects), there may be a
>project planner, maybe part-time, maybe full time.  Effort on
>project planning is a small percentage of total effort.  Project planner
>usually doesn't care about hours spent, and who spent them. They only
>want to know if task is complete, and the elapsed time to task-complete.
>And what headcount to assign to the task.   Project planners don't do
>billing.
>
I think I was misleading.  You need TASKS/ACTIVITIES to do activity 
based costing , but you dont necessarily need a project plan.  So you 
see you need more data than just a stop watch but you dont need a 
project plan.  Thats what I liked about DCL.  It lets you map out what 
needs to be done (TODO's) and how to categorize them (TODOs) and who to 
bill for them (ACCOUNTS).  It has project planning features (weak), but 
thats not my interest.  My interest is in getting good data to make 
meaningful billing and accounting records.

>Peachtree time & billing has a task timer, but no project planner.
>I'll bet MSMoney is the same.
>
I dont think a project planner is necessary but I think you want more 
than a stop watch.

>Separately, I have a very very interesting technical issue:  
>
>HOW DO I WRITE A GNOME APP/APPLET SO THAT IT CAN BE EASILY USED AS A
>PLUGIN NOT ONLY IN OTHER GNOME APPS, BUT ALSO IN WEB APPS, E.G.
>CHOCO-LATTE?	
>
>THAT is the magic question.   The answer is, I think, that we need a new
>& different software layer/abstraction.  And I think I have some idea of
>what it is.
>
My question why make it GNOME specific?  I dont think we need a new 
abstraction layer as such.  Guess I come from different mind set though.


Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise