[kde-guidelines] bugs.kde.org for guidelines

[Frans Englich]

On Tuesday 14 September 2004 07:10, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 02:54:36AM +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> > On Sunday 12 September 2004 18:55, zander at kde.org wrote:
> > > The problem that issues flow into the lists to fast, I personally work
> > > around by don't deleting the important emails and threads.   Keeping
> > > bookmark folders to lists.kde.org also works quite nice IMO.
> >
> > But isn't bugzilla then pointless since developers could use TODO's and
> > bookmark folders?
> > I want to use bugzilla for the usual reasons; it allows a formal way of
> > handling requests; a Maintainer can deny a suggestion by
> > users(developers), see how the Gnome people use it. It's not fluid as a
> > Wiki, but a separation between suggestions and those who decide.
> > Drafting, and discussing the HIG is perhaps the wiki usable for(if I am
> > going to write, I will probably link to my local test server).
>
> There are very different needs for developers<->users v.s
> guidelinewriters<->guideline-users
>
> Most of the changes make the bugs-database not usefull; the simples example
> of this is that in development, if I post a bug or a feature request one or
> maybe 2 people decide if that feature goes in, no problem for bugs.kde.org.
>  The issue is very different for guidelines.
>
> I just don't see how the bugs-system adds anything usefull to the
> guidelines development process.

No, this bothers me.
 
Of all what I can see, Bugzilla is like tailor made for a situation like this:

* It allows arrangement of content(attachments, comments, etc.) in a 
practical, central, way, publicly. We need this.

* It allows issue and status tracking. An issue can be marked as done, and it 
is easily to get an overview and have control on what goes on -- it scales. 
We need this.

* It abstracts user requests. You above write it doesn't apply, but I insist 
it does. If everyone who want to affect the design of KDE have to join this 
list, we will end up like kde-usability: Long rants where personal opinions 
and itches of the day is lobbied. With using bugzilla, opinions are clearly 
separated from the decision makers -- like for normal applications -- and for 
example Ellen can close a bug as INVALID motivating "No. I am the maintainer. 
I rule, and I 0wn you." The GNOME folks have currently 67 open bugs on their 
HIG reported by different people; we don't want them on this list -- we want 
it as bug reports.

* It allows us to do it in the order we want. We can't write sections 
on-demand as people requests it, or it is realized something needs to be 
covered. What we can do is attach relevant information to an bug report, and 
we can then take that "bundle" and discuss it once and for all, and mark that 
in writing. 

Wiki or a TODO file doesn't scale: They can't handle that different people do 
requests, and at that amount; it doesn't have the same practical benefits; 
and it doesn't formalize the process.

Again, what have the GNOME folks done wrong? In what way do they not gain from 
what I described, and how would these 67 requests fit into a Wiki or TODO 
file?

Now, systematically and thoroughly, explain to me why I am wrong.


Cheers,

		Frans


PS. Pardon for the late reply.