Re: Changes to wiki page Bugs/Importance

[cprofitt]

On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 21:55 +0100, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:
> Okay, all your points make a lot of sense to me. You have to excuse me
> but, since my main intention when editing this page so suddenly has
> been figuring out in deep how to organize interaction with other
> members, this edition has rather been a simulation.
> 
> I've already reverted the changes made to bugs importance, but the
> wiki doesn't allow me to directly change the page's name back to
> "Importance". It says there's already a page with this name, but when
> you enter the page it says it doesn't exist. Is this a flaw?

I took a look at things now and it appears that the old version has been
restored.

I always found that when I was making any change other than a trivial
change that I made a 'test' page under my personal wiki. This allowed me
to show people what I was intending to do and get feedback on it.

Charles


-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Changes to wiki page Bugs/Importance

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Okay, all your points make a lot of sense to me. You have to excuse me 
but, since my main intention when editing this page so suddenly has been 
figuring out in deep how to organize interaction with other members, 
this edition has rather been a simulation.


I've already reverted the changes made to bugs importance 
, but the wiki doesn't 
allow me to directly change the page's name back to "Importance". It 
says there's already a page with this name, but when you enter the page 
it says it doesn't exist. Is this a flaw?
-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Changes to wiki page Bugs/Importance

[Elfy]

On 06/12/13 20:18, Nicholas Skaggs wrote:

On 12/06/2013 02:05 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:

Why I *changed pages* without asking
- Because I guess letting people make changes and discussing only 
those on which we don't agree makes *further progress*, further than 
speaking everything before hand. And if there's no consensus letting 
other's opinion to prevail.
Alberto I applaud your willingness to make changes and be proactive. 
That said, we need to discuss things first.


- How much *time* do you thing a message like this will someone take 
to write? And to answer? How do you see this for *every choose* (or 
not choose)?
Making changes prompts discussion, and as you noted, if you want to 
make big changes you don't want to discuss them all before making 
them. The answer to this is to copy the wiki pages in question and 
make your changes there so others can see. For example, I can clone 
the entire QATeam wiki to a new page under my name, ala


wiki.ubuntu.com/balloons/QATeam

and make drastic changes there. Then ask others for feedback. Does 
this make sense? Look at the


Again, I'm always glad to see people striving to keep the wiki 
relevant and up to date. So I applaud your work. I think it just 
happened in the wrong place. Can you copy everything over to a new 
place under your name and revert the changes you made then on the 
primary pages? We can discuss and tweak things on the copies, and once 
we're ready, replace the main pages again.


Thanks,

Nicholas





Other than to say, that having discussions about this sort of thing 
amongst those affected sums up the communal nature of wiki,  I'll say no 
more - this represents my view nicely.//

/
/Elfy

--
Ubuntu Forum Council Member
Xubuntu QA Lead

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Changes to wiki page Bugs/Importance

[Nicholas Skaggs]

On 12/06/2013 02:05 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella wrote:

Why I *changed pages* without asking
- Because I guess letting people make changes and discussing only 
those on which we don't agree makes *further progress*, further than 
speaking everything before hand. And if there's no consensus letting 
other's opinion to prevail.
Alberto I applaud your willingness to make changes and be proactive. 
That said, we need to discuss things first.


- How much *time* do you thing a message like this will someone take 
to write? And to answer? How do you see this for *every choose* (or 
not choose)?
Making changes prompts discussion, and as you noted, if you want to make 
big changes you don't want to discuss them all before making them. The 
answer to this is to copy the wiki pages in question and make your 
changes there so others can see. For example, I can clone the entire 
QATeam wiki to a new page under my name, ala


wiki.ubuntu.com/balloons/QATeam

and make drastic changes there. Then ask others for feedback. Does this 
make sense? Look at the


Again, I'm always glad to see people striving to keep the wiki relevant 
and up to date. So I applaud your work. I think it just happened in the 
wrong place. Can you copy everything over to a new place under your name 
and revert the changes you made then on the primary pages? We can 
discuss and tweak things on the copies, and once we're ready, replace 
the main pages again.


Thanks,

Nicholas

-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality

Re: Changes to wiki page Bugs/Importance

[Thomas Ward]

Alberto,

I think you've missed some very important things here.  I also think you've
missed the entire "community" idea that we have here.  For bug
documentation it tends to stand without any explanation at all that if you
are going to do major changes to bugs or the definition of a term related
to bugs you should open a discussion on the changes first, especially if it
will break the relationship of documentation pages in relation to other
pages or cause a disruption in helping new triagers get acquainted with
everything.

I've made comments below here on your message.  Please read them and
respond.  I also ask you questions at the very end.  So please read them.

On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella <
es204904...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why I changed pages without asking
> - Because I guess letting people make changes and discussing only those on
> which we don't agree makes further progress, further than speaking
> everything before hand. And if there's no consensus letting other's
opinion
> to prevail.

By making *major substantial changes to the documentation* you have broken
multiple links in the wiki.  You have broken the consistency of other pages
as well.  Not to mention the quick-links I have to the documentation, the
first question I had shortly after you revised the pages was "Where did the
documentation go?" and to me as a bug triager who regularly refers to the
documentation, that raised a very large red flag.

>
>
> When I'm reverting the page to the version previous to my editions
> - When some members of Ubuntu Quality formally disagree with the previous
> methodology, and I'll understand and respect the decision.

Jean-Baptiste is a member of the Ubuntu Quality team.  They're also a
member of the Bug Control team.

I am a member of the Ubuntu Quality team.  I'm also a member of Bug Control.

I have the same concerns as Jean-Baptiste, and I'm sure that other, more
senior members, of the Quality team and the Bugs team(s) have some issues
with major changes that are not announced or discussed.

>
>
> Why I renamed the page from "bugs" to "bug importance"
> - For the title page to be semantic complete itself; what its not
important
> for developers but to the average user. If this was accepted, I had planed
> to do the same to the rest of pages for consistency.

*Why?  The URL shows "Bugs/Bug Importance" rather than "Bugs/Importance".  *The
previous URL was sufficient to identify that the importance is related
directly to Bugs as it falls in the Bugs/ section of the wiki.

>
> Why I haven't redirected the previous page title to the new one
> - Because keeping the number of pages to the minimum to make browsing for
> pages of the same category simpler, because I've corrected links in all
the
> pages I've found, and because it's already easy to find the new page in
the
> suggestions for these minimum cases where the link is broken.

*By not redirecting the old page to the new one, you've broken several
things which I have written on Ask Ubuntu, as well as my "fast click links"
to take me to the documentation myself and others rely on.*  I have two
"gold standard" questions regarding Bug Triage, Importance, and Status, and
they all link to each other and to the wiki documentation.  As well, by not
redirecting the old page to the new one you are potentially going to be
breaking other documentation outside of the Bug wiki pages which relate to
Importance.

>
>
> Why I have deleted the header
> - Because it's expected that nearly every user that enters the page to be
> looking to not something more than bug importance itself. Perhaps there
can
> be a header for making easier to navigate between documentation, but the
> header we had here looked rather like a warning; so it is expected it to
> distract the user rather than making navigation to look simpler, specially
> being in the top of the page.

The header should remain.  As Jean-Baptiste states, *it links the
documentation for triaging together*, showing that it is related to the
Triage procedures and provides quick-access to switch around in the
documentation.

>
>
> Why I removed the introduction
> - Because what is bug importance is self-explanatory, specially being
> expected that the user will come to this page from one that speaks about
> what bug triaging is.

You make several assumptions here.  You make the assumption that *new bug
triagers* on Bug Squad (and in future, QA's Bug Triage role) *are going to
understand the bug permissions system.* By removing the introduction you
are forcing users to read the triage guide which explains the permissions.
 But at-a-glance having the Introduction there is worthwhile.

I strongly support *readding the introduction* for this reason.

>
>
> Why I putted how to set bug importance at the bottom of the page
> - Because this is information you read one time, over bug importance sets
> being read many times. And it's already easy to notice this information is
> there.

*You make the as

Re: Changes to wiki page Bugs/Importance

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Why I *changed pages* without asking
- Because I guess letting people make changes and discussing only those 
on which we don't agree makes *further progress*, further than speaking 
everything before hand. And if there's no consensus letting other's 
opinion to prevail.



When I'm *reverting* the page to the version previous to my editions
- When some members of Ubuntu Quality formally disagree with the 
previous *methodology*, and I'll understand and respect the decision.



Why I *renamed* the page from "bugs" to "bug importance"
- For the title page to be semantic complete itself; what its not 
important for developers but to the *average user*. If this was 
accepted, I had planed to do the same to the rest of pages for consistency.



Why I *haven't redirected* the previous page title to the new one
- Because keeping the number of pages to the minimum to make *browsing* 
for pages of the same category simpler, because I've *corrected links* 
in all the pages I've found, and because it's already *easy to find* the 
new page in the suggestions for these minimum cases where the link is 
broken.



Why I have deleted the *header*
- Because it's expected that nearly every user that enters the page to 
be looking to *not something more* than bug importance itself. Perhaps 
there can be a header for making easier to navigate between 
documentation, but the header we had here looked rather like a 
*warning*; so it is expected it to distract the user rather than making 
navigation to look simpler, specially being in the top of the page.



Why I removed the *introduction*
- Because what is bug importance is *self-explanatory*, specially being 
expected that the user will come to this page from one that speaks about 
what bug triaging is.



Why I putted *how to set* bug importance at the bottom of the page
- Because this is information *you read one time*, over bug importance 
sets being read many times. And it's already *easy to notice* this 
information is there.



Questions
- Would I have been able to edit the page if I had to explain these 
points, and the rest of them, before the edition; or I had simply 
*chosen not to* try so?

- Is this the same to *the rest* of people?
- How much *time* do you thing a message like this will someone take to 
write? And to answer? How do you see this for *every choose* (or not 
choose)?
- What is more important for you: things to be *simple*, or things to be 
*correct*?
- What is the *advantage* of Ubuntu as operating systems over the rest 
for users?

- And for its *management*, is it the same?


Just ideas 🐂


El 06/12/13 08:00, Jean-Baptiste Lallement escribió:

Hi Alberto,

I noticed that you made important changes to the Bugs/Importance wiki 
page [1], important enough to not be done without discussion. If it 
has already been discussed somewhere, could you please point me to the 
discussion.


One of the most important change you made was to rename the page from 
'Bugs/Importance' to 'Bugs/Bug importance'. Furthermore there is no 
redirection from the previous version to this new page. The 
consequence is that there are now broken links on several other 
sections, this page is not found anymore by search engines with terms 
like 'ubuntu bugs importance' or even 'bug importance' and it adds no 
useful information since the word 'Bugs' was already on the URI. It 
also breaks consistency with other pages of the Bugs section named 
'Bugs/' e.g Bugs/Status, ...


You moved the header that contains the link to the bugsquad knowledge 
base from the top to bottom. This is important information that must 
be on top because it gives reference to triaging material for some one 
who is not familiar with it and landed directly on this page.


You removed the introduction that explains what is importance and who 
can set it. The screenshot is a nice addition though. There are now 2 
bullet points toward the end of the page, but who reads it entirely?


Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your contributions but I think 
this is an important change to a core page of the Bugsquad knowledge 
base that needs discussion beforehand. I'd suggest to revert this page 
to rev 33, (especially the renaming of the page) then discuss your 
changes.


Cheers,

[1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Bug importance formerly 
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Bugs/Importance




-- 
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality