I think we can do better
http://customer.otrs.org/otrs/customer.pl
is a horrible interface. I'd like something that works like uservoice.com but
is integrated in to the rails port (because tom says so). I actually think we
should go with uservoice.com, it's all set up and would take 5 minutes to
integrate, and then move to something self-hosted later. I don't think it would
actually be super hard to write either. I even started doing it but got pissed
off at all the negativity on this list... I must be getting old.
I outlined previously that you can do map and software bugs / features in one
interface etc etc etc and uservoice isn't perfect blah blah blah. But I don't
like the best being the enemy of the good.
I think openstreetbugs is a good first step but I'd want to do better.
On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:55 PM, Ian Dees wrote:
> OTRS => http://otrs.org/ (Open Source Ticket Request System)
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 8:50 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:45 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> > OTRS?
>
> huh?
>
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:30 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Well let me take that back a bit - actually even doing some very simple
> > cleanup of the interface and having a feedback mechanism *at all* would be
> > a good first step, as people jumped on my recent OGD post in the comments:
> >
> > http://opengeodata.org/the-importance-of-timing-to-feedback
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:27 PM, SteveC wrote:
> > > I think you're concentrating on tiles, but that's not really the
> > > bottleneck I would jump on first.
> > >
> > > The conversation goes like this:
> > >
> > > "steve we have 300 million people a day look at our site and we would
> > > like to send their edits and feedback to OSM"
> > >
> > > Really it's the API we're talking about. Tiles are just a CDN problem.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Jun 17, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > >> Steve,
> > >>
> > >>> They would like to link to us directly but don't think a) we can
> > >>> handle the load and b) don't think it would be a good user experience
> > >>> to dump people on to osm.org, what with the site design.
> > >>
> > >> To paraphrase (not specifically Wolfram, but the unnamed other megacorps
> > >> you're chatting with):
> > >>
> > >> 1. they'd like to link to us directly but our infrastrucutre is too weak;
> > >>
> > >> 2. they would not want to give us a shitload of money to improve our
> > >> infrastructure, but could imagine hosting something;
> > >>
> > >> 3. there is fear that the community would view this negatively.
> > >>
> > >> To which I say, I don't think the community has anything against someone
> > >> doing a glorified maps.cloudmade.com; if they have really fast servers
> > >> and maybe even a CDN, can do lots of styles and make the tiles and
> > >> services available under a free-for-all policy. That would be great, and
> > >> would - if given sufficient long-term promise by whoever it is - allow
> > >> us to reduce our tile serving to an experimental capacity, freeing up
> > >> resources for the core database which obviously we must keep operating
> > >> ourselves.
> > >>
> > >> But there is a logical problem here and that has nothing to do with us
> > >> at all. You say that many would like to link to OSM directly if only OSM
> > >> had sufficient resources. Now assume that some big guy with many
> > >> enemies, say Google, or Microsoft, were to offer super-fat tile serving
> > >> for OSM as I outlined above. We would then scale back our own tile ops
> > >> to a minimum, and their server would be the main OSM tile server, and
> > >> whenever you go to www.osm.org your browser says "connecting to
> > >> osmtile.google.com" or some such.
> > >>
> > >> I think that the community would be less of a problem - I don't think
> > >> many would care if our tiles came from MS or Google or so as long as
> > >> they were unrestricted and the data remained free. But all those other
> > >> big guys, of whom you say that they would like to link to us - would
> > >> *they* want to send their users to get tiles from Google, MS or someone
> > >> else? Or would the "we'd like to link to you but your infrastructure
> > >> cannot take the load and anyway your front page is ugly" then be
> > >> replaced with "we'd like to link to you but you must understand that the
> > >> 'sponsored by XYZ' on the shiny front page is a problem"?
> > >>
> > >> Of course things would be even worse if the big sponsor wanted to put
> > >> the tiles or service under a non-open license (e.g. a license with a
> > >> "noncommercial" component"). That, I think, would reduce overall
> > >> usefulness rather than improving it. Any funded tile serving would have
> > >> to be more open than what we can currently offer, not less.
> > >>
> > >> Bye
> > >> Frederik
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> > >>
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > > stevecoast.com
> > >
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > stevecoast.com
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > talk mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
> >
>
> Steve
>
> stevecoast.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
Steve
stevecoast.com
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
