On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Russell Keith-Magee <[email protected]> wrote: > My apologies if I wasn't clear - that wasn't what I was saying at all. What > I meant is that we can't institute a process like "Every core developer must > spend 4 hours per week triaging tickets or they will lose their core > developer status". This would be a completely reasonable course of action if > you were a paid employee -- your employer is just telling you what you have > to do to get paid -- but that dynamic doesn't exist in a volunteer project. > In a volunteer project the only reason the "hard" stuff gets done is because > people volunteer to do it. > > However, in this case, Jacob *did* give a detailed explanation: > > "This seems like a needless function; it's already possible to just > re-look-up the object from the database." > > It was rejected because the need wasn't clear. Simon then reopened the > ticket, and gave a detailed use case, to which Jacob responded: > > "I'm really not convinced by Simon's use case -- adding "reload()" only > saves you a single line of code. Let's do our best to keep Django as svelte > as possible." > > What more detail should Jacob have provided? The feature isn't that complex. > It's not like he's got an opportunity to present a PhD thesis in relational > algebra. It's a simple feature, which has been rejected because in Jacob's > opinion, it can be achieved in other ways. > > Jacob didn't explicitly call for a discussion on the mailing list. Perhaps > he should have. However, when the ticket was reopened for the second time, > James Bennett (ubernostrum) pointed at project policy to have these > discussions on the mailing list. > > What should James have done instead? >
Perhaps the issue is that there is a feeling that no-one is listening to the community? This particular issue was shot down because a core dev didn't like the style of the change. They felt that adding a function to be explicit about reloading an object is wrong since it bloats django. This was decided 5 years ago, communicated in a single line. Any attempt by the community to say "wait a minute, I'd really like this" gets shot down and told to bring it here, or worse. 3 days ago, the response was "If you want it, you have to make it happen." Perhaps this wasn't clear, that was a member of your community trying to make it happen. There have been several attempts over the past 5 years by people trying to make it happen. Each time someone has tried to make it happen, after the initial attempt, the ticket has been re-closed "BFDL already said no, just go away". In this case, happy days, a few hours of discussion on the ML, and this ticket is now accepted. You need to understand that not all of your users are comfortable or capable of advocating on mailing lists, but are happy to contribute to tickets. With this ticket, 5 years of asking for this feature on the ticket was pointless, and this is what the OP is railing against. You gave people a way to contribute, but then ignore them. Perhaps "ML or GTFO" if not the right approach for attracting contributors. Cheers Tom -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
