An'n 02.09.2010 21:26, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
Any way, the question is how to measure benefit and
potential.
My idea for that, as I said, is having a pool of possible improvements
and then letting decide a mix of user ratings ("pro - we need this!",
"contra - not really necessary...") and common sense of the developers.
Create a page at Meta where people can propose things. Then check the
proposal (can it be implemented in a performant way? is it actually a
direction we want to develop to? technical traps? etc.pp.). If the check
is positive put the proposal on a second, protected, page on Meta and
let users vote pro and contra. Developers can then choose from the list
which project they want to implement next (preferring projects with high
ratings, but with room for an amount of common sense by the developers
because they know better about the technical feasibility).
My main point is, that at the moment I as a user have no chance to
influence the development of Wikimedia (except for doing it myself). I
can pray or I can vote on Bugzilla but I have no way to predict when and
who takes the time to start a project. It would be nice to know that
there are people committed.
If I have an idea, what do I do at the moment? I can post on wikitech-l.
I will be told that the best way to get it done is by doing it myself. I
can go to Meta and propose something there. On Meta nobody will even
read it. So what I would like to have is a process. When I make a
proposal it should either get rejected or it should end up in the
above-mentioned pool and be implemented sooner or later dependant on its
importance.
My concern is that people have ideas, propose them, people tell them
"great idea!" and then nothing happens for years. If we had an official
process to handle proposals people can at least have confidence that the
proposal gets attention and they can observe their proposal and estimate
the proposal's chances based on its ratings.
Marcus Buck
User:Slomox