Any attempt to reset the votes would mean that once more, high scores are just
ignored.
Of course, nobody would browse the whole list of existing bugs, even to recast
their own votes. So reseting the votes would only lead to forget about old bugs
or old RFE.
Have office suites really evolved so that most wanted features several years
ago are now not relevant at all? If so, why not take the top 20 and have a vote
on the dev list for each of them and keep them or close them for the rationale
that could emerge from the discussion?
My feeling is that you're trying to change the AOO agenda about RFE. Just ditch
current history to rewrite your own history with OpenOffice. Same with your
other message in my other mail in this topic. Of course old reports got more
votes. If they had been closed earlier, the list of active reports would be
different. And since RFE cannot implemented shortly, you'll always have this
time bias.
Anyway, I don't want to engage further in this discussion. I've given my
opinion, if the developers agree with your proposal then so be it. But if the
votes are reset, I'll take it as a huge setback for the users decisions and
won't hesitate to point to this topic in the forum to explain why I've lost the
least interest in BZ. I would not see the point filing reports if in the future
someone can delete the votes for whatever reason.
If you want to go even further, why not just delete all the content of BZ and
start from scratch?
Hagar
Le 17/03/2013 15:32, Rob Weir a écrit :
On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> wrote:
Le 14/03/2013 15:10, Rob Weir a écrit :
But if only a small minority of users know about voting, and we have a
large collection of ancient votes, then the votes are less meaningful
and relevant. That's my main concern. I don't believe that the vote
counts necessarily reflect current reality. Look at the requests we
received when we did the Google Moderator feedback requests. To me
that is more meaningful, since it is more current.
Argh, no!
The Google moderator was a total mess. At least the BZ is very detailed, not
that difficult to use, you can subscribe and have a discussion about the
problem.
Google Moderator was far easier to use for users than BZ is. That is
why we received far more feedback with Moderator. I'm sorry that the
troglodytes don't like that.
Voting in BZ is not more difficult than on Google Moderator.
Why should ancient votes be less valid? They are still the expression of a
large install base.
They are less valid because they are ancient and do not necessarily
reflect what today's users want.
One way to improve this might be to remind users about voting via a
blog post. If we have more users involved in voting it becomes more
meaningful. Maybe even wipe out old votes, so we are looking at
actual current user wants. Then make votes more visible by creating
periodic reports on issues with the most votes. And when we fix an
issue that had a lot of votes, maybe we blog about that.
What nonsense! So because ASF took hold of the code they should restart from
scratch and annihilate all the previous feedback?
Yes. That is an accurate statement of my belief here. Feedback from
2002 issues, no matter how many ancient votes were attached, is
meaningless in 2013.
Note: if you are correct, that these votes are still relevant, then
new votes would quickly yield the same distribution and the same
issues would quickly end up with the same prioritization. And if I am
correct we would get a different distribution. But you must admit
that if we did reset that votes and a different distributed emerged,
then the new distribution would be the more accurate and more relevant
one. So I don't see what you are afraid of. Why not get the most
accurate feedback possible?
If we can't handle an issue, then let's tell it in the report itself what is
lacking (manpower / expertise / ...).
What would be the advantage of a blog post? No attachment allowed I guess,
so it would be a loss of interactivity with the users.
Read what I wrote. I suggested that we "remind users about voting
via a blog post." I never said anything about collecting feedback via
blog post comments. The idea would be to have a blog post that
explains how voting works and inviting users to vote in BZ. In other
words, making it so votes are not only filtered through forum
volunteers and their recommendations. Open it up.
In the forums, we have always encouraged users to file reports and vote for
the issues so that they get attention from the developers. It has always
been said that the only interface between devs and users should be the BZ.
And even if it's not very user-friendly at first, I agree that this is the
best way: it makes the reporters state clearly what they want and this is
not that easy enough to filter the requests. Users who really wants to make
their problem known do bother filing a report, the others don't and it means
that it is not a really important idea.
How would a blog be analyzed by the devs exactly?
You misunderstand. We should still use BZ to collect feedback on BZ
issues. My suggestions were aimed at making this feedback more
relevant, so it is not just project insiders voting, but getting a
greater representation of what users want. We have had over 40
million downloads. How many of these users having voted? How many
even know they can vote. You asked why the votes are ignored. I'm
suggesting that if the feedback is ancient and unrepresentative, that
could be one reason.
Sometimes users wonder why bugs scoring many votes don't get any attention.
Any attempt to cancel the votes or change the way users chose their
priorities would be detrimental to the project credibility. I would
personally be very annoyed by such a behavior and would stop filing reports,
voting for bugs and I would also stop advising the use of BZ at all.
I'm telling you why I think the ancient votes are ignored. That's my
belief. You're welcome to believe whatever you want. But I think we
agree that the votes are ignored today.
If you consider the weeds as the myriad of reports with few votes, then we
have some rocks to concentrate on (the top rated by votes). Once the latter
are removed, then let's talk about how to handle the garden.
Hagar
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
