Hoi,
It sounds nice "all users have equal say". They have not and, they should
not. Because what will be the benefit? People are more happy when they are
told what the priorities are and why and when they are kept informed about
developments.
Questions like "what will be the benefit", "how to measure benefit"
are
vitally important. It is a question of what should be rated and how. Many of
the obvious projects have been rated and are getting attention. There are
many great ideas, there are even many coded "solutions" and it takes a lot
of effort to get those considered and evaluated.
The notion that bugzilla is the obvious solution is interesting. It is not
obvious to me because it is not where the important questions are answered.
With too little resources the only thing is to make choices and explain
them. <grin> this will not please everyone that is a given, but it leaves
plenty of room for a lot of bitching </grin>
Thanks,
GerardM
On 2 September 2010 22:50, Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com<Simetrical%2Bwikilist@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 4:42 PM, Marcus Buck <wiki(a)marcusbuck.org
wrote:
> > 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).
>
> We have this system already, it's called Bugzilla.
>
> > 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).
>
> It's not possible to give users significant direct influence. There
> are too many users and too few developers. Users are collectively
> given significant say in development, but the influence is spread very
> thin because the users are so numerous. You have little say because
> there are many thousands of users whose say is weighted equally to
> yours.
>
> > 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.
>
> You do know when there are people committed, because the bug is
> changed to ASSIGNED (or FIXED if it's quick). Usually there are no
> people committed, but this is because there are vastly more ideas than
> implementer time, not because of procedural issues.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is exactly what Bugzilla does. In practice, of course, the
> overwhelming majority of feature requests there are not fixed, but
> again, this is not a problem with the process and it cannot be fixed
> or even mitigated by changing the process.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>