On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2013/3/19 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Guenter Marxen >>> <guenter.mar...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Am 18.03.2013 19:05, schrieb Dave Fisher: >>> > >>> >> There is no consensus here to eliminate or reset the votes. Some who are >>> >> more in touch with users have stated that it would be harmful. I trust >>> their >>> >> judgement. >>> > >>> > >>> > as a longtime "OpenOffice"-user (since StarWriter 2.0), I think that in >>> this >>> > case, Rob is wrong and resetting the votes would be something like an >>> > offense to us, the "old" users, who wrote and commented issues or voted >>> for >>> > issues for many years. >>> > >>> > I mainly used Writer, writing long texts with many images and many >>> > references (f.e. an SO-/OOo-manual, widely spread in the german speaking >>> > universities) and in times before the turbulences around OOo I made bug >>> and >>> > enhancement issues and also voted for issues. >>> > >>> > Look f.e. at issue 5608 >>> > (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=5608). >>> > >>> > It was raised in 2002 and the latest comment is dated 2012. (I did not >>> find >>> > "my votes" and the number of votes in bugzilla, but I think, I voted for >>> it >>> > in 2004.) >>> > Although the issue is ten years old and nobody worked on it, it remains a >>> > very important enhancement issue for all, who are writing long texts with >>> > (many) references. The issue is not at all outdated! >>> > >>> >>> I suppose it depends on how you define "important". Since issue 5608 >>> was entered, back in 2002, we've fixed 36054 issues in Bugzilla. >>> (31064 defects, 3839 enhancements and 1151 features). So that many >>> bugs were fixed, or enhancements/features implemented, while issue >>> #5608 was not. I don't know how you define "important", but to me >>> something that is behind 36,054 other items is as close to unimportant >>> as I can imagine. >>> >>> Remember, what things a developer chooses to code on is also a vote. >>> They vote with their time. I count that kind of vote very highly, >>> since it is backed up by actions. Those 36054 issues were important >>> enough for someone to actually invest their time into fixing it. >>> >>> I don't mean to offend anyone by telling them that their issue is not >>> important. We're all entitled to our personal preferences, and if you >>> say something is important to you then I will gladly accept that. But >>> from a project perspective, I think it is clear that an issue that was >>> bypassed by 36054 other issues for over a decade, that an issue like >>> this is certainly not a likely candidate for a"high priority" >>> designation. The "votes" from project members, via their actions, has >>> put 36054 other issues ahead of it. >>> >> >> Rob, I think you are missing the point here. I agree that the choice of a >> developer is a sort of "vote", and a really important one, but it is NOT >> the same vote we are discussing here: votes on issues are cast by users, >> not by developers. Votes are not a measure of feasibility but of hope: >> there is a HUGE difference between saying "we are sorry, we don't have the >> resources to implement this right now" and "because nobody implemented this >> before, your issue is not that important for the community so we are >> forgetting your votes". After all, those users that voted ARE an important >> part of the community. >> >> I insist: "we cannot do that now" is not the same of "we will not do that >> simply because nobody did it before". >> > > But this is not a case of "we don't have someone right now to work on > it". It is not a case of "not today, but maybe next week". This is > not a case of "Sorry, we can't fit it in this release, but maybe we'll > do it in the next release." What this is is a case where no one, > absolutely no one, zero, zip, nada, gar nichts, nobody has cared to > deal with the issue in over a decade. That screams out UNIMPORTANT. > Remember, there is such thing as false hope. And if ever there was an > example of false hope it is someone hoping for a decade old issue in > Bugzilla that has been passed by by thousands of other issues. >
Of course, feel free to prove me wrong and get one of these ancient issues resolved. But in the end even minor actions count more than "important" wishes. I believe I've made my point. -Rob > -Rob > >> As Guenter said before, the fact that an old issue is still there does not >> means that it is not important, it only means that it was not possible, for >> whatever reason, to solve it. >> >> Regards >> Ricardo >> >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> -Rob >>> >>> >>> > The same is valid for issue 11901 >>> > (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=11901) and many others. >>> > >>> > I always have accepted, that the lack of ressources/developers prevents >>> to >>> > solve some/many issues "in time", but I could hardly accept, that "old" >>> > stuff in bugzilla is reset/deleted and hence forgotten. I think, that >>> some >>> > old users ("issuers") would be frustrated. >>> > >>> > Instead of resetting the votes, one could have a list of 'issues with >>> many >>> > votes', "weight" them (f.e. as proposed by a survey) and then let the >>> > volunteers/developers decide, if they want to work on their "most >>> important" >>> > issues in the list. >>> > And perhaps for another ten years nobody is found to work on some or all >>> of >>> > them! But that does not change the importance of such issues (provided >>> that >>> > importance is not only measured by age). >>> > >>> > Special cases are concerns/issues by "users" like the city of Munich (as >>> an >>> > "beacon project", Leuchtturmprojekt), which can weight more than 1000 >>> > individual votes. >>> > >>> > If the process is transparent, users and "issuers" will understand (and >>> be >>> > patient). >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Grüße >>> > >>> > Günter Marxen >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > 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
