Hi Daniel, Thanks for your clear answer.
>From what I understood, profiles are somehow validated through they contributions quality, and that gives a weight to their opinions if they propose new ideas?. Maybe it's not a formal model but it's probably the way it works. This seams quite wise, I'd only add into consideration the fact that (in my opinion) the majority of contributions come from a concrete need for their project, after solving the problem in the core technology, the person wants the patch to become public so he/she can profit from upgrades without having to maintain their patch to it (usually the company agrees with the decision to share the code for that reason). So only a small part of the users will contribute, and if their propositions are rejected too fast, you won't be able to evaluate the quality of the contribution because the person won't come back before another bug. That's why I think there should be a kind of "idea hunter" mechanism (that could be driven by the community itself, without the need for Google to allocate resources for that). People could send their patches to a "parallel version" where the community could vote for a feature to become part of the core. This would raise an indicator that the feature is wanted and trigger a reflection on how to design the solution. I'm only sharing ideas live, kind of brainstorming, there might be illogical things in what I'm proposing, but I think the subject is worth it. p.s: I think the strength of Google was in its recruitment strategy, that made it grow without loosing efficiency. A kind of similar solution is needed for GWT as an independent open source in my opinion... Le mercredi 21 mai 2014 18:11:44 UTC+1, Zied Hamdi OneView a écrit : > > Hi, > > I had the experience of wanting to contribute to GWT with a new > feature<https://code.google.com/p/google-web-toolkit/issues/detail?can=2&start=0&num=100&q=&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Owner%20Milestone%20Summary%20Stars&groupby=&sort=&id=8727>, > > but I received kind of a rigid answer: "we won't adopt that, it was > designed otherwise". > > So I'm wondering "who decides on the design", since this if decisions are > rigid there is a risk that the community will fork GWT and have different > variants (which is naturally bad in essence because the energy will be > split on the different projects). I think this is an important questions to > solve: "who decides on priorities?" > > For my concrete example: there's no "standard" solution for authorizations > in GWT, addressing the problem is definitely a subject that interests the > whole community. I proposed a "draft" solution that is born dead. So > > - where can we discuss the design of a solution to be adopted? > - do we really have to wait until there are thousands of favorites on > a bug to start thinking about it > - other platforms adopted solutions for (logging, aop, security, code > organisation, ect...) if something exists and works on other platforms, > isn't that an additional indicator that the feature is valuable and that > it > should be addressed in GWT too? > > Your comments are welcome :) > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GWT Contributors" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-web-toolkit-contributors/71448d97-e71e-4a77-8e4d-af2da6f01b1a%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
