List basic assumptions we're making

[waldoj]

Create a document about the basic assumptions that underlie this: e.g., that we're using GitHub as the backend, the technical sophistication about each type of user, what kind of agencies or organizations that we expect to deploy it, etc.

[waldoj]

In no particular order:

• relying on GitHub is acceptable, because the infrastructure that they provide is 90% of what's needed for this project
• initial adopters will be few, and will consist almost entirely of NGOs with an interest in redistricting reform
• it is legally/procedurally possible for governments to work with GitHub
• the only government agencies interested in using this will be state-level redistricting organizations, which are frequently creatures of the legislature
• the NGOs and government agencies deploying this will be technologically unsophisticated (perhaps the NGOs more so than the agencies, because the agencies will have GIS-literate staffers)
• most of the people using a deployed site will be directed there via others, to look at a specific redistricting proposal or existing district (as opposed to arriving organically)
• most people will look at only a single district
• the vast majority of visitors will not return
• a small but non-trivial fraction of visitors (perhaps 10%) will want to provide a public comment
• less than 1% of visitors will want to propose their own district lines
• it is OK (although certainly not ideal) that proposing district lines requires significant technical competence on the part of the proposer

[waldoj]

• while the site does need to be responsive, as it is 2016, it's really only viewing proposals and commenting on them that people are liable to be doing on a mobile device
• this software will not be used during the redistricting process in 2021 (5 years away)—instead, it will demonstrate how redistricting should be opened up in 2021, and be used in the odd special redistricting process over the next few years

[ericsoco]

Linked to workflow doc.
f4a68b7