Re: Wiki Feature Dashboard Additional Category
Wiki Feature Dashboard Additional Category Who would implement this, if this is approved by many would someone do it or do I need to find an employee to do it? Is this mailing list a suggestion forum for those that can do or can some do it themselves? Well, I think it's better you post your idea here: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/forum.dml?id=24 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wiki Feature Dashboard Additional Category
Well, I think it's better you post your idea here: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/forum.dml?id=24; Why don't you be helpful rather than point me to an irrelevant link (although I do love that place)? Please actually help. :( -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wiki Feature Dashboard Additional Category
Who would implement this, if this is approved by many would someone do it or do I need to find an employee to do it? Is this mailing list a suggestion forum for those that can do or can some do it themselves? How does this work? -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wiki Feature Dashboard Additional Category
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 20:45:36 -0800, John Poelstra poels...@redhat.com wrote: You have an interesting idea about tagging feature pages needing an owner. In reality that pretty much represents all the pages in 'Category:FeaturePageIncomplete' If they had an active owner or developer working on the feature they wouldn't be there. Or they were just created and aren't ready to propose to FESCO just yet. (For example LZMA_for_Live_Images is waiting for proposed patches to 2.6.33 to actually be accepted by Linus before there is any point in asking FESCO to approve the Feature.) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Wiki Feature Dashboard Additional Category
On 12/14/2009 11:45 PM, John Poelstra wrote: You have an interesting idea about tagging feature pages needing an owner. In reality that pretty much represents all the pages in 'Category:FeaturePageIncomplete' If they had an active owner or developer working on the feature they wouldn't be there. As somebody who's owned a feature page put into this category, I just don't think this is true at all. There are a couple of reasons for this. Certainly, the cost/benefit of working on updating the wiki, which can sometimes consume a significant amount of time, vs that of working on the feature itself skews heavily towards the decision to work on the feature instead of updating the page immediately, which means the Feature page on the wiki suffers. It's also useful, as a developer, to queue changes to the Feature page instead of re-editing it every time anything on it changes - it's just easier to work on one thing at a time. The form also puts a lot of burden on whomever is developing a feature (and maintaining the form), for several reasons, listed below. Some of these reasons are probably more true for people working in an RH office than for RH remotees or non-RH contributors. To wit: a) The form isn't especially clear - the field names are basically all you've got to go on, and they're not terribly descriptive. It's hard to know what put in several places, and many people have different expectations. If you don't get it right (and it's not possible to get it right) you wind up having people coming to tell you so on a fairly constant basis. And they'll conflict, of course. b) There's a strong pressure to update the forms *very often*, even for features which it's clear will be slow to make progress. c) There's not really a clear audience to the form. Is it for the general population of Fedora users? Fedora developers? FESCo? The Board? RH management? Clearly a feature that's submitted is queued for FESCo's approval, though it's still unclear as to why FESCo has to actually *approve* every feature, or is interested in doing so, especially since it's obvious to everybody that they *don't* approve every feature, nor would they be able to if everybody implementing a feature actually filled out a Feature page and submitted it. Thus raising item d: d) Some member of every group I listed above thinks they're not only the target audience for the form, but also that if there's something on it they don't understand or even just don't see, they're going to lose their livelihood if that's not rectified *immediately*. e) Many of the people mentioned in d seem to be basically unwilling to actually read the content of the form in order to get their question answered. If they think something is missing from Benefit to Fedora, the odds are you'll get an email (or worse, they'll show up at your desk and interrupt you in real time) about the Benefit to Fedora section even if the confusion is easily solved by reading the Summary or Detailed Description sections. Which brings us to: f) There are several fields which are basically redundant. If neither Summary nor Detailed description adequately include at least some large amount of Benefit to Fedora, then the form really just isn't filled in. Likewise, if Scope, Dependencies, and User Experience are left empty or are sparse, it's it's likely because the developer filling out the form thought that had been explained well enough already and was tired of explaining things repeatedly. g) There are fields that don't /actually/ have a purpose. You'll get complaints if Documentation is empty, but not if you put in link to a pdf that's irrelevant to the actual Feature. h) There are fields that are essentially punitive. Not every Feature needs a release note (though some would argue that it's the only reason to bother with the Feature process at all...), but if you don't put text there for one, you're back in email-flood land. And it's really there because we don't trust developers to actually submit things for the release notes, anyway. Yes, there's plenty of data to support the fact that we usually won't write release notes, but this isn't a very good way to fix that. It's certainly not a convenient place to track it - especially since you've got to put something in that field even before you've actually implemented the feature, when you basically can't possibly know what would go there. But if you don't put something there when you first propose the Feature, guess whatyour inbox looks like? i) There's a field that's just there for people who don't understand wikis, AFAICT. I randomly sampled some Features in Category:FeatureAcceptedF11 (since that's pretty stable data at this point in time) to see what they said for Comments and Discussion. All of them just listed a link to the Feature page's Talk: page. Surely this field
Re: Wiki Feature Dashboard Additional Category
Daniel Hendrycks said the following on 12/12/2009 10:03 AM Pacific Time: Hi, my name is Daniel Hendrycks http://my.opera.com/DanielHendrycks/. I have a suggestion for the Fedora Wiki Feature Request Dashboard: The wiki page explaining how to properly request a feature had a link to another wiki article telling you what to do if you cannot implement a feature yourself. Within this article it never did state you need a developer willing to implement but in actuality you do. It is a requirement in your feature request to have someone willing to implement your request. Which wiki page is talks about not being able to implement a feature yourself? I'll try to make it clearer. My request is have a section in the feature process dashboard for features without a developer. Features would be placed in that category after being approved by the Feature Wrangler (poelcat). The feature request must specify that the feature does not have a developer for it to be put in that category (obviously). This would be more convenient for the person wanting that feature. Feature request owners would not have to hunt down developers and ask them to implement the feature for them (this would annoy some community developers at the same and worsen the Fedora Community). Instead developers could just look at what requests have no developer and contact the owner of the feature and include their name in the request, they would then be re-checked by the Feature Wrangler and hopefully transfered to FESCo for further evaluation. I am suggesting the request would be placed in the Feature has no developer (possible name of the category) section after being approved by the Feature Wrangler because this will indicate that the request meets all requirements except that it does not have a developer. Since it meets all requirements possible developers will not have to read a broken (incomplete) request, this would make developers more likely to check. This is an interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would work in reality. Chances are someone deciding to work on a feature will add or make changes to the design proposed by someone else. Summary: Have a section in the Feature Request Dashboard for features without a developer. From there developers can volunteer there skills to implement this feature if later on approved by FESCo. Thank you for your time, Daniel Hendrycks :) Topics of this nature are best discussed on fedora-devel-list which is where I'm moving this post The websites list has nothing to do with the features process. You have an interesting idea about tagging feature pages needing an owner. In reality that pretty much represents all the pages in 'Category:FeaturePageIncomplete' If they had an active owner or developer working on the feature they wouldn't be there. John -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
