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

[Thomas Zander]

On Sun, Sep 26, 2004 at 01:29:41AM +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> On Thursday 23 September 2004 04:35, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 September 2004 08:48, Frans Englich wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > it's a bit odd to have bugs open on content that doesn't exist.
> 
> Why?

I thought that to be obvious;
Bugreports (and thus bug.kde.org) are directed toward existing functionality
and frameworks.  The developers never look at the bugs section for a piece
of technology they are going to write anew.  However much you want them; they
are not going to do it.

> Have you never scribbled down notes about something you are to write, or 
> planned a major piece of code on paper?

What a very wierd statement; you are perfectly aware that scribbling something
down is a very personal thing, Its in a language that probably nobody can read
but the scribbler (and not the writer 2 weeks later).  There are various other
levels where this kind of comment is completely irrelevant to the public at
large.

> As one might guess, I didn't start pondering on the HIG when it was announced 
> others got the idea it needed improvement.

Maybe it is a surprise to you that many many others have started thinking
(in tandem) about what to do and how to arganise it as well.  Bug-databases
dont work for this kind of project.  This is my experience, and the experience
of many others.

I find it somewhat disturbing that you a) don't seem to have that experience
b) feel that we are all suffering from mass-delusion and need teaching.


> > discussion of application development and design does not happen on b.k.o,
> > and for good reason:
> 
> Right on. But it's not contradictory.

As someone who does usability you should know that its is very wrong to use
a technology in two different 'states'.  One where you use it normally and one
where the usage is suppost to follow different, not-written-down, rules.

Maybe a programmer can cope with that; but please don't ask the writers to.


I have the feeling that you still don't fully grok the discussion structure
we decided upon at akademy; so here it is again;
Authors write down the things that have long ago been decided in KDE, by
framework or by discussion.
Whenever there is a question if a old or new way of working is 'right' it
can be discussed on the right mailing list.  This is explicitly not the
guidelines mailing list, but the specific MLs.

As a new section has been written, or on non-trivial changes, an
'announcement' email is sent to the guidelines mailing list for all groups
to see.  Discussion on content is not wanted at this point;  the discussion
on the specific mailing list was for that.

Cross-linking suggestions are inserted after the announcement of an article
on Usability in the other guidelines, if appropriate (and visa versa).


> I find this thread silly. Someone takes the initiative to get something done, 
> and people say no.

Because those same people have to use it and spent time on it.

> If I was lurking, I would think the poster of such a mail 
> knew better than me, because he has ideas, drive and from that, the 
> conception that the suggestion would be a good idea, while I couldn't think 
> of any reason to why it would be a bad idea. I would respond, "Sure, as long 
> you are willing to maintain it".

As said before, by me and others,  KDE, and the guidelines in particilar are a
public-interresting subject;  having good and non-duplicate information in the
public is _essential_ to the work we are trying to do.  We have long past the
stage where x project are started by various hard-headded people, each trying
to do their thing and hope the best will succeed.
In other words; I'd we like to *all* work together on this, and get to the
target faster.


> I find the replies in this thread 
> unstrategic from a management perspective. Friction.

I find your lack of understanding of a certain standpoint causing friction.

> But I got productive things to do -- I'm out of this thread.

Thank you for accepting a different way of working!

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-guidelines/attachments/20040926/56525261/attachment.pgp