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