Closed kfogel closed 3 years ago
Discussion welcome, on the question raised in the "TBD" note that starts out the diff.
Karl, I agree with your reasoning here for the interpretation and think what you've added is at the right level of depth and flows sensibly. If this direction is agreed upon, I will add a cross-reference in/to the Community + Ecosystem section, b/c ecosystem maps are useful to thinking about archetypes. I think it's good to keep the deeper details to the Appendix, and I can think of a few other resources to add (e.g. although it gets deep into business strategy, wardley maps are a nice way to map the value chain that has to develop in order for a good/service to actually meet users' needs, and it can highlight where commodification would be helpful and thus an open collaborative effort of potential value).
I'd also pull out a Key Recommendation here, which I can add
Many thanks, @lacabra, @sstruble, and @amye. I will remove the TBD comment, merge now, and then @sstruble you can make the Key Recommendation edit as a separate PR.
Okay, done. @sstruble, please go ahead and make a PR for the follow-on changes you describe above.
Rename "Landscape Analysis / Mapping Technical Capacity and Gaps" to "Ecosystem Mapping for Adoptability" and write the latter, but preface it with a long tbd comment explaining the decision to rename and inviting further discussion about that. Also add two ecosystem map images, although the new section only uses one of them right now.
Update outline.md accordingly, and add a reference in resources.md to a post about ecosystem mapping.