On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:42 +0100, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > That said, Ubuntu has the same problem even though its developers *do* > use blueprints. Registering a blueprint for Ubuntu doesn't achieve > anything, unless you know the dance steps to get it approved by the > right people. But there's no indication of this anywhere on Launchpad, > so there are now 3000-odd idle blueprints. I try not to wonder about > the > resulting loss of enthusiasm.
I was not aware of the extent of the issue. Thank you for stating this. I suppose then that blueprint registration and project registration was similar faults. Neither adequately explain what they are, who will use them, and their prerequisites for success. Most registered project are an idea only; without a branch of code and they will fail to thrive. I suppose then that most blueprints are missing a specification (in the correct format) that defines how to complete the feature; thus will also fail to thrive. The dream of activity logs and heartbeats on projects and they artefacts may help show dead efforts, but this is a secondary issue. Lp really needs to help users contribute in a productive way. It is very discouraging to try then fail to use Lp. -- __Curtis C. Hovey_________ http://launchpad.net/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : launchpad-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
