Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 07:53:27 PM Matthew Toseland wrote: > 7 bugs were modified in August. So lightly used, but still used. I count 89 being modified in August. You likely forgot to switch to "All projects". signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 06:35:38 PM Ian Clarke wrote: > I wasn't specifically thinking about moving away from Mantis, even though > nobody seems to use it any more That is definitely not the case, it has been my primary tool for planning development for years [1]. One rule is: Before *ANY*

Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

Matthew Toseland writes: > And IMHO the same applies to the wiki: Before we shut it down, we should > take a snapshot, even if we're not going to actively host it anywhere. > We can't rely on the Internet Archive. I have a snapshot of the wiki (but no history), since I've been mirroring it into

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 2:05 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote:It doesn't always work. Sometimes it is necessary to make a start on the big-ticket items, even though they're costly. If their value justifies their cost, and each is estimated with some degree of accuracy, then this

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 28/08/16 19:48, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 1:32 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > On 28/08/16 19:29, Ian wrote: > >> On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Toseland >> wrote:> That's not what was asked. My prioritization proposal >> separates the >

Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On 28/08/16 19:35, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 12:22 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: > What matters more is the bug tracker: The poll is problematic because > > half of the suggestions are technically illiterate. > > > There was more than enough time for the technically

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

I have in private advised you on your career goals on several occasions, though I'm hardly qualified to give such advice. The serious, non-personal point here is that we need to plan to raise more money if we want to have more paid employees. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 1:32 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: On 28/08/16 19:29, Ian wrote: On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote:> That's not what was asked. My prioritization proposal separates the estimation of the value of completing a task

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 1:30 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote:Clearly we can't *do* "everything" for $20K. Ultimately if there is no clear victor, somebody will have to choose a set of stuff for our paid developer(s) to work on, based on the votes but also informed by some estimate of

Re: [freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 12:22 PM, Matthew Toseland mj...@cam.ac.uk wrote: What matters more is the bug tracker: The poll is problematic because half of the suggestions are technically illiterate. There was more than enough time for the technically literate to comment on and modify these

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 28/08/16 19:29, Ian wrote: > On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> Asking us not to take into account the technical >> difficulty of each task when prioritizing arguably > That's not what was asked. My prioritization proposal separates the > estimation

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 28/08/16 19:23, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On 02/08/16 23:47, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: >> Hereby we begin the 3rd stage of the financial allocation poll. >> >> You may participate by filling your votes in to this spreadsheet and >> mailing it back: >>

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > Asking us not to take into account the technical > difficulty of each task when prioritizing arguably That's not what was asked. My prioritization proposal separates the estimation of the value of completing a task

Re: [freenet-dev] Financial allocation poll stage 3

On 02/08/16 23:47, x...@freenetproject.org wrote: > Hereby we begin the 3rd stage of the financial allocation poll. > > You may participate by filling your votes in to this spreadsheet and > mailing it back: > https://github.com/xor-freenet/freenet-money-poll/archive/2016-stage3.zip > > It has

[freenet-dev] Migrating the wikis and bugtracker: please keep the bugs!

On 20/08/16 07:01, Florent Daigniere wrote: > On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 22:31 -0400, Steve Dougherty wrote: >> On 08/12/2016 04:00 PM, Florent Daigniere wrote: >>> On Thu, 2016-08-11 at 14:28 +, Ian Clarke wrote: Why don't you set a date since you're the one that would do it? >>> >>> I have