Luiz;
Writing with a tooth-ache; so I don't know if my words will be as lucid as I'd like them. Just have to try to keep the horse in front of the cart.
Sure, you'll need a Project Co-Ordinator. But THAT is maybe Step Four in the Planning Stage; the group has to come together on certain other items FIRST...
This is not to criticize, not at all. But a leader will not take on a task which has no focus. If you take on a leader expecting him to supply that focus, the group's goals will be secondary to his vision-- which he will have already acted upon with or without you-- only expecting you to provide the legitimacy (and possibly capital) to back his next actions.
Right now, what we've got are a lot of nice dreams, and some very capable people, possibly with the will to act IF the goal matches theirs, and if the odds of success seem favorable (each individual has their own risk/rewards standard). That's not a bad place to start from-- but it points out what the next steps have to be:
a: explore the various options/dreams
b: based on that exploration, come to an agreement (consensus) on the goal(s) to be supported
c: evaluate what it will take to attain the goal(s)
d: organize people and resources to work on specific areas that will bring the goal(s) closer to fruition
And, Luiz, do not look at this as a two-dimensional array; the plurals in the list should indicate to you that there is reason in accepting that two or more goals may be aimed at-- for TOTAL unanimity is as likely as there being a single all-encompassing distro of Linux. Further, some goals may be immediately (or quickly) attained, while other goals no less worthy of attainment may be inherently have a longer "gestation"-- so hatching two or three projects is not as dangerous as some might at first imagine. The only danger is in not clearly defining and managing each with its own scope and direction.
Here is a partial (haven't done a comprehensive look, just what I remember most) list of activities that have been suggested so far:
* develop an IMPROVED, Updated 41-compatible calculator (from "scratch")
* develop a "drop-in" calculator board for renovation of old calc bodies
* re-engineer a PDA to act as an efficient RPN/calc device
* re-engineer a TI or extant design calc to act as an RPN device
* develop software to make PDA an efficient locally-programmable ("on the fly") data capture and calc device
* develop new, RPN-style code on a software emulation of a suitable CPU, for porting to later hardware designs
And some of these could be grouped or split as needed, as your plans for Action continue to develop and grow.
Of course, you are at the stage, right now, where everyone has vague ideas of what they want, and even vaguer ideas of what everyone ELSE wants, and of what it would REALLY take to attain any one of these dreams. So gathering INFORMATION becomes the critical task of anyone interested in furthering the project...
Let me speak, Luiz, to both you, and all in this Forum on three points I have personally observed about collaborative projects and the nature of people in them.
To begin with, you will ALWAYS find a large percentage of "interested" parties who are, nonetheless, PASSIVE (usually 80% to 90% of a group); they follow YOUR efforts, even cheer you forward, but will wait patiently for YOU to come up with the goods. Ten to twenty percent of your "interested" group are active; it is they who actually carry on the tasks required. THEY tend to require little directing beyond occasional co-ordination. Do not fret that so few respond to a call for action. It is always this way, as those in leadership positions in community organizations and user-groups will attest. It is not a bad thing; but a leader must understand this in order not to be discouraged, and also to recognize that even small efforts by inexperienced hands are to be valued and rewarded, as every charging activist began first with a small, contributory act; and if nurtured, "newbies" can bring fresh life and talents into the pool of activities.
Next, note that, among your ten or twenty percent of active folk, if you make them do so-called "LEADERSHIP" activities, they are next to useless contributing elsewhere! Look at your own experiences as leader, or under a leader, and this becomes kind of obvious: Somebody has to keep lists, make contacts, write letters, track changes/bugs, report, refine plans, and so on-- but don't give these jobs to people who shine in OTHER activities, because no matter HOW committed, people only have so much time/energy to spare. Find those who have leadership experience and talents FOR the leadership positions; don't choose the ones who understand the tasks best!!
Finally, everyone needs to have an understanding of the processes by which an idea may become reality, AND just where and when CRITICISM is really needed.
It's incredibly easy to shoot down an idea. Pointing out its high expense (usually before anyone has specified or elaborated his/her vision of it); questioning its legality or defensibility in court challenges (often when no one has suggested violating copyright or patent-- and tell me of ANY thing/one not subject to the POTENTIAL harassment of a legal challenge!!); "it's been done", "it hasn't been done", "it can't be done", "if it could be done, somebody woulda done it"-- all irrelevant to whether it was done RIGHT or SHOULD BE; and of course, "it will not sell enough to justify its cost"... which is a common way to eliminate consideration of an idea before a market is even determined or its marktable potential is explored.
You can't blame anyone for being negative; in our own lives, we have to make assessments of what is the proper, most efficient vector for our own efforts. This involves being acutely aware of the blocked roads. What is often unrecognized by the well-meaning of the negativists, is that a group effort, over time, is different... it is an off-road vehicle... and roadblocks, no doubt there, will either be identifiable as impassable OR a path around them will be found.
The strategy of developing an idea involves a shifting of perspectives UNTIL a pathway or two is found; it is THEN that an evaluation of the efficacy and dangers of each path become useful.
Wozniak was told by HP that a personal computer did not fit their marketing profile; Apple resulted. IBM, in the formative years of its Harvard collaborations, saw perhaps fifty computers being sold a year, MAX. Of course, if their conception of what a computer WAS was correct, that would have probably been true. GNU existed pre-Linux; they concentrated on free tools for Unix until Torvalds came up with a usable kernel that gave those tools new meaning in a context of free Operating Systems. I'm sure someone with a better memory of history will be able to add to the list of reasonable views that included road-blocks that, in retrospect, were NOT impassable. How this happens is easy to diagnose: people have a tendency to view the future of their circumstances as a mere extension of their present. So the shadows that loom from HERE will overtake us, even if we move over THERE.
Being negative also has another advantage: if your criticism results in inaction or discouragement of an idea, you were right, after all. And no one had to study it. No one had to ask his brother-in-law for a favor. No one had to plot, plan, or draw a map. Indeed, nobody had to get off their haunches or rub two sticks together or engage their rustiest gears. And nobody looks foolish for obeying the call to "reality".
Everyone should feel free to criticize. But no one should out-of-hand reject an idea, based on such criticisms, UNTIL a better, clearer path can be identified, or potential workarounds explored. What is easiest does NOT automatically qualify as "BEST": the greater rewards often are attached to OVERCOMING difficulties, not skirting them.
And the clever sometimes innovate the way to do something formerly expensive, on the cheap. Or find a new company, eager to win acceptance for its designs. Or adapt an existing thing or process to fit a new need. And then the difficulty we once voiced as "reality" disappears; while a rare occurrence, encouraging and searching for the clever solution is just what idea development is about.
Well, anyway, Luiz; I understand that you do not want to see efforts fade away into obscurity. A leader won't help change that. You REALLY need, rather, to have the proponents of these ideas honestly STATE them, put them forward as full proposals.
Let the ideas lead, at least for the moment. Ask QUESTIONS. EXPLORE an idea FURTHER. If someone says "I want a 3-line display, and graphics", ask how the display is to be addressed, what graphic commands, character-based or what--- make an idea become more specific. Solidify what is being discussed by visiting display manufacturers on the net. Discuss power requirements and ambient-light rejection. Make a ghost of an idea put on clothes and rattle chains; by becoming real in people's minds it may capture their imaginations.
You need a small critical-mass of people to take on a project; they need to feel, first, that it is POSSIBLE.
Then, Luiz, you will ask for volunteers. But the response needn't be: "well, for what, exactly?"
An unfocused, unvisualized goal never rises out of the mist. Guidance without a starting vision is guidance with no essential mission.
But we could work together on defined goals, with a fair probability that, given long enough, we'd achieve them. So let's hear MORE than sketches, shorthand wisps followed by dispirited naysaying. Those who would teach, put it into words. Make your points REAL.
Then let's get to it. I'd really like to see something come out of this Forum that embodies what we've all hoped HP would bring to rescue us. ;-)