On 3/18/13 5:34 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 11:32 AM, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2013/3/18 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:11 AM, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> 2013/3/18 Jörg Schmidt <joe...@j-m-schmidt.de> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] >>>>> >>>>>> I'd say, "Thanks for the suggestion. We take all suggestions >>>>>> seriously, and user suggestions are often the source of ideas that >>>>>> make it into the product. Thank you for using AOO." >>>>> >>>>> Sounds fine for me. >>>>> >>>>>> The title of the tread is "A question about existing practices". I >>>>>> think the facts are quite clear. If we have many 10 year old >>>>>> untouched BZ issues then fixing these issues is not part of our >>>>>> existing practice, whether you define that as mandatory, voluntary or >>>>>> whatever. >>>>> >>>>> No problem. >>>>> >>>>>> "Practice" is what we do, not what we talk about doing. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, but what we must be as clearly defined this user can foresee it. >>>>> >>>>> Why? >>>>> If I as a user know any bug in the program, it may be important for me >>> to >>>>> know _approximately_ when this will be fixed. >>>>> >>>>>> you want to argue that we talk a lot about fixing old issues, and say >>>>>> many solemn things about how important they are, then I would agree >>>>>> with you 100%. But we don't actually do anything about them. >>>>> >>>>> I do not know how to define something should, but I know that you have >>> to >>>>> make it transparent. >>>>> >>>>> For example, a road map for developing the program is important because >>> it >>>>> clarifies what new features AOO will have in the future. That's right, >>>>> that's a good thing. >>>>> >>>>> But it is also important to clarify how to deal with bugs and feature >>>>> wishes of users. >>>>> There was the suggestion to delete all old votes, only we must still >>>>> clarify how we handle new votes. I think. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1. >>>> >>>> There is an old joke: "I'm only responsible for what I say not for what >>> you >>>> understand", but the fact is that being AOO an end user application what >>>> our users understand IS important for us. And what will people understand >>>> if they know all those votes are being deleted? IMO, users will take this >>>> as "they do not care about our votes, why should I vote again? Why >>> should I >>>> fill a bug report that nobody reads?" and that's a really bad thing. >>>> >>> >>> They'll believe what we tell them. If we say that we're "resetting" >>> the vote counts in order to determine what is most relevant to users >>> today, starting with an unbiased and fresh view of today's users >>> priorities, and not to over-advantage the dead hand of decade-old >>> votes from users who may or may not even still be using OpenOffice >>> today, then this will be seen as a good thing. >>> >>>> If you want to know how relevant old issues are, once we have a working >>>> survey system we can start a series of surveys about most wanted features >>>> requests. IMO, the only valid way to delete votes, the only way that show >>>> respect to our users is to close the corresponding issues. >>>> >>> >>> The fact that there are decade old issues demonstrates that they are >>> not relevant at all. >> >> >> The fact that there are decade old issues only demonstrate they are still >> unresolved: nothing more, nothing less. Are you saying the request to >> provide support for opentype features is obsolete only because nobody >> solved it since the issue was filled on 2003, and that we need to trash the >> more than 200 votes for it? Sorry, but that makes no sense... > > > Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If you want to argue the > contrary you would need to explain what the relevance is of issues > that are 10-years old and have not been touched and probably never > will be. I might as well keep in a box my letters to Santa Claus from > when I was a child, in hopes that they may be someday delivered. If > something has not been touched for 10 years this is an extremely > strong indication that it is irrelevant. Things that are important > tend to be done. Things that are not important do not get done. I > know of no other measure for determining this.
I don't think that it help us forward if we nitpicking further about different understanding if something is still relevant or obsolete. The point is that Rob is correct to assume that if a 10 year old issue/RFE is not yet addressed it will be likely not addressed in the next 10 years if not a huge bunch of developers fall down of heaven. The question is if we want to use the voting feature in the future if it is useful to reset the current votes or at least review the current issues with high votes and mark them as invalid/won't fix or whatever to get a clean start point. In general I would like to make use of the voting feature but with the current state I am not sure if it make sense. Many issues that probably nobody will fix in the near future. For example issues with 2 votes of the same person are completely irrelevant to me. The fall in the category of hey my issue is the most important one, why don't you fix it. What is more important than my issue ... Juergen > > -Rob > > >> >> The lack of a split view is also a very old issue that's still relevant, as >> well as the "reveal codes" mentioned by Dennis (even if I do not need it, >> many people want it and every now and then someone ask for that on the >> forums). Styles for tables? And for Math objects?... may I continue? >> >> The point is that all the above mentioned request are really difficult >> tasks, and that alone justify the fact they are still unresolved. Even if >> there are requests that are not valid any more, and it's quite possible >> that there are lots of such requests, dropping a nuke to kill user's >> feedback on every single old issue is not a good thing to do, IMO. >> >> Just my last 2¢ from today (taking a break from this thread) >> >> Regards >> Ricardo >> >> >> >>> I can't think of any test of irrelevancy more >>> accurate than pointing out that they have been ignored for over 10 >>> years. >>> >>> My suggestion was merely a way of getting feedback that might be more >>> relevant. But that's fine. If we're more comfortable claiming that >>> decade-old untouched issues are sacred to the project, then that's OK. >>> They can just as easily be ignored for another decade. We have >>> better means, like Google Moderator, or surveys, for finding out what >>> users actually think today. >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>>> Just my 2¢ >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Ricardo >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Jörg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org >>> >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
