-- [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] Barelds Bump :) On 11/24/06, Alfred Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The idea is an interesting one but the value would come from effective > implementation. As I said last time, implement it and if managed > properly I am sure we would fine it a valuable source (we already use > Steampowered forum threads but the signal to noise ration can be quite > poor). > > - Alfred > > Erik Hollensbe wrote: > > About 6 months ago this was being discussed, and never came to > > fruition. A *lot* of the questions/comments here these days have less > > and less to do with supporting the system as much as requests to > > modify it in some fashion. > > > > I think it would be not only wise, but prudent for valve or a > > secondary party to implement a bug tracker or feature request system > > that would allow people to effectively petition features/bug fixes > > assigning a priority to the things that are most important to the > > guys who run the servers. Obviously, it wouldn't be that bad of an > > idea to tackle this in the client as well. > > > > The advantages for valve would be several-fold - not only would you > > have a backlog of all the things that your constituents are > > complaining about, but a petitioning system would allow valve to see > > priority based on the number of people who are interested in seeing > > this fixed. Several techniques can be used to minimize inflation of > > voting for requests, but obviously won't eliminate the problem. > > > > The advantages for users would be several-fold as well - instead of > > clogging up the list with the 400th thread that starts with, "Where > > is the 64-bit VAC2 support?" One email gets out, and someone replies > > with a bug number and everyone can see that the bug is marked by > > valve administrators as "WON'T FIX". Not only is it clear to everyone > > that the bug is already known, it's clear to everyone that valve has > > no intention of tackling this problem anytime soon (if at all). > > > > Obviously there's a relations issue here - people are undoubtedly > > going to get bent out of shape when they see something tagged as > > "WON'T FIX", but in reality that's no different than the current > > situation. The above-described situation actually lends to clearing > > up confusion, simply because the lack of responses by staff has, in > > the past, caused more problems than is really necessary. > > > > This simply doesn't work unless Valve and the community participates > > - if one of them decides that it's not going to work, the whole point > > is lost. Undoubtedly, Valve has their own internal trackers and a way > > to ease the transition from moving to the public database to the > > private one would be a big bonus for them, I imagine. > > > > So, I'll offer again - if there is significant interest by Valve and > > the community, I'm willing to extend as much help as is attainable to > > make this happen, whether that be writing code, providing ideas, or > > administering/hosting the service. > > -- > > Erik Hollensbe > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > --
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
