Dear all, last time this issue was discussed, the majority of replies agreed to have those pages removed and that's it. Hence, I now put this into action and deleted those pages from the wiki. Thanks a lot!
Regards, Christian Am Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017, 16:22:19 schrieb Geert Janssens: > David, > > I agree this wasn't handled as it should have been. My apologies for that > even though I'm not directly responsible for it. > > I was and still am in favor of removing these pages and I appreciate the > creative solution you applied as a compromise. > > I don't know why Frank decided to revert your changes without any prior > discussion or why he insists on keeping those pages around. I'll let him > clarify that part. > > I understand your desire for more clear procedures. I don't know what to > propose unfortunately. On my own here I have been considering what kind of > policy could work for a group of volunteers who choose to spend their free > time on the project. > > What we have now (a weak consensus based policy) has worked most of the > time. But it falls flat as soon as a conflict arises. Is this out of fear > of losing a precious volunteer or rather because the other volunteers > prefer to focus on things they enjoy doing rather than resolving conflicts > ? Perhaps a bit of both. > > So what could work in a volunteer based community ? It should be something > that takes little time and effort in general of all parties involved > (volunteers don't have much time or energy to spare aside from the real > contributions they want to make). > > I'm open to suggestions at this point. > > Regards, > > Geert > > Op vrijdag 1 december 2017 04:57:38 CET schreef David T. via gnucash-devel: > > Frank, > > > > I am struggling right now to find the right way to bring up the issue of > > the Gnucash Draft Concept Guide, which still resides on the wiki. > > > > As you know, I have proposed on numerous occasions (most recently, two and > > a half weeks ago) to have these pages removed from the wiki, since they > > are out of date, inaccurate, poorly written, superceded, and can turn up > > in search results, giving users incorrect information about Gnucash and > > its features and functions. > > > > In that recent thread, four people responded to my request to remove the > > Draft Concept Guide. Only you appeared to support retaining these pages, > > although your primary concern was with the mechanical aspects of Google’s > > search algorithm, upon which I have no expertise to comment. (I will note > > that fixing one search engine result set does not preclude some OTHER > > search engine now or in the future from finding and returning these pages > > despite your best intentions). > > > > You actually offered to move these pages to your own user area, but John > > noted that might not actually hide the results. > > > > Two days ago, I went to the wiki to search for information about creating > > reconciliation reports in response to a question on the user list, and > > when > > I entered “reconciliation” into the wiki’s OWN search box, 4 of the first > > 5 > > hits were for the Draft Concept Guide. > > > > Since there had been no support for your position to keep the pages, and > > since you had had two and a half weeks to take whatever action you had > > proposed to do (and not taken any), I felt it was time to address the > > Draft > > Concept Guide issue directly. > > > > I did not delete the pages outright (since I do not have the rights to do > > that), but I did what I considered to be the next best thing, which was to > > replace all the text in those pages with the latin nonsense that printers > > have used for hundreds of years to mock up page layouts (“Lorem ipsum”). I > > even made sure to retain the various structural elements in the pages, > > going so far as to replace headings and bullet points with latin phrases > > of > > similar length. > > > > Since, as far as I understand, your only reason for retaining these pages > > is to serve as some sort of model for the Gnucash community to use for > > wiki pages, my technique allowed these model pages to be retained > > *without* their turning up in any search results, anywhere. So, that’s > > the best of both worlds, right? > > > > Apparently not, as within hours, you had gone and reverted all my changes. > > > > So, I have a few questions to ask of you, Frank, and of the community. > > > > 1) First, Frank: What exactly is so special to you about these pages? Why > > do you insist that they remain forever on the wiki? The only reason I > > have heard from you is this idea that the pages could provide wiki page > > template examples. But, my most recent changes preserved the template > > aspect without retaining the problematic language—and you still reverted > > the changes. So, there seems to be something *else* with these pages that > > makes you feel so protective. What is it? My recent changes seem to prove > > that there is something in the text itself that you are attached to. Can > > you explain clearly what that attachment is? > > > > 2) Frank, in the past, you have chastised me for reverting changes that > > you > > had made on wiki pages, and informed me that it is considered rude to do > > so. So, why are you so consistently rude to me? This is not the first time > > that you have reverted my changes. > > > > 3) To the community: Whose Wiki is this, anyway? I have presented to the > > community on separate occasions my reasons for wanting to remove these > > pages, and I have heard from most of the developer community that these > > pages could be removed. The only person opposed to this appears to be > > Frank. However, Frank’s wishes on this issue (and others regarding the > > Wiki) apparently take precedence over everyone else’s, such that if Frank > > doesn’t agree, then it won’t happen. That doesn’t sound much like a > > collaboration. > > > > 4) To the community: Again, I put the question to the group: what purpose > > and procedures are supposed to apply to the wiki? There appear to be > > numerous unwritten rules about how to engage with the process (see for > > example question 2), and apparently I have broken those rules in this and > > other cases. It is frustrating to be encouraged to contribute to the wiki > > only to have those contributions rejected summarily. Establishing clear > > procedures and guidelines for contribution and workflow management seem to > > be in order—certainly if you expect non-developers to contribute back to > > the GnuCash community. > > > > Sincerely, > > David T. > > _______________________________________________ > > gnucash-devel mailing list > > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel