On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:31 PM, Björn Krombholz wrote:
You can't compare those two in general. A normal bug fix means
repairing a broken thing, that was supposed to be implemented
correctly in the first place.
A style issue is like adding new features, and that's far more
complicated and even more as the style guideline is part of
MusicBrainz interface between the database and the user.
A bug is an objective fact, where with a known input the expected
output is different from the real output. So you know what you have
and you know what you want, something in between is broken. It is
fixed, when expected and real output become identical.
A style issue is a process that involves (1) finding the expected
output (how should the data look like, so it is easy to handle in all
affected aspects?) _and_ (2) implementing the "thing in the middle" in
a way, that its output matches the results of phase (1).
Very true -- however, when I last spoke with Don, he expressed his
wishes more like: "I wish we could try out possible style issue
solutions the way we test bug fixes on test.mb.org". That is not to
say that we should use the bug process for style issues, but that
style issues should be rolled out on a test basis to let people see
the actual impact of the proposed solution. And that makes sense, I
think.
And now some more general thoughts:
1. We're dealing with a lot of pent up frustrations from previous SC/
Style dude systems that weren't working so well anymore. So, I think
part of our frustrations towards the Secretary stem from that and
once we work through those and show that the new process is working,
we'll find a smooth rhythm for working out style issues. Everyone
please be a patient for a little longer.
2. As I mentioned above, rolling out style issues and bugs on test
should be done more frequently. Luks already has root on test.mb.org
and I would be willing to give that to fuchs as well and instruct
both on how to update the staging server. Luks & Fuchs: you wanna?
3. As far as the process for style changes is concerned: Does it
really matter in what forum this happens in? What if a style
discussion starts in mod notes, migrates to a wiki page and then gets
formally presented to the secretary? As long as basic requirements
for defining the problem, outlining the pros and cons and perhaps
illustrating how the fix would look, does it matter where it is done?
Perhaps we should define WHAT should be part of a style proposal and
now HOW a style proposal should look.
4. Forming consensus: I don't think we've been forming consensus for
a long time and as Fuchs points out -- this is not really possible
with our size. We're now playing a game of politics: You can't make
everyone happy. Every action will leave some happy people, some
pissed off people and lots in between. When we talk about 'forming
consensus' I think the reality of it looks a lot more like a
utilitarian approach: How can we make the most number of people
happy? I'm not really suggesting we changed anything -- I think this
is mostly a matter of perception and using the right terminology.
Just some thoughts on the current discussions, which I think are very
exciting. We have difficult social systems to develop and we have a
lot of intelligent people here who are contributing towards that
goal. I think this is very exciting -- before the net you would
largely see these things in action when some government was forming
-- a rare occurrence. To be part of a social group that constantly
reinvents itself as the demands placed on it change, is really cool.
I have faith that in due time we will establish systems that will
work for the long haul.
--
--ruaok Somewhere in Texas a village is *still* missing its idiot.
Robert Kaye -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://mayhem-chaos.net
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
