|
Description
Launchpad is a great platform for software development, and in the bug-reporting department, everything is fine. But it seems that the effort to read and evaluate user's blueprint is often left much undone. Take a look at this picture: http://i34.tinypic.com/1zhvh1.png
Those are all of the blueprints I have registered on Launchpad. But as you can see, not even one of them has been evaluated, and I wrote many of those several months ago! I hope you agree, so something will be done about this.
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
 mgunes (Ubuntu Developer) wrote on the 13 Jul 08 at 13:00
|
I don't think you have the right idea as to what blueprints are meant for and how the process works. The specification tracker has long been misused as a feature request / idea proposal mechanism. I looked at a few of the blueprints (or more correctly, blueprint entries) that you've submitted, and like most blueprint entries registered, they consist of just a summary, and lack the link to an actual specification document that details what they propose to be done. It's probably a good idea to mass-migrate such "stub" blueprint entries that consist of brief, raw ideas and no actual blueprint to Brainstorm, and delete them from Launchpad.
The below links can help you understand the process better:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FeatureSpecifications
https://help.launchpad.net/WritingGoodSpecifications
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SpecLifeCycle
|
|
Tree MendUs wrote on the 31 Jul 08 at 11:34
|
Thanks for the 3 separate links mgunes.
Are the links that help available on the blueprints submission page?
Or are they available in the pop-up window that takes you there from some of the recommendations to make a blueprint, that get put on Brainstorm submissions?
This is a matter for website tweaking.
I see your helpful links in a range of circumstances.
And they Are helpful - but only to the people that get told.
Please - if you can, when you find your self giving out help like this to Some people, if you could also send a note to the web site admins, to encourage the web-admins to make those links available in respective pages so Every one else can find it.
Re: "like most blueprint entries registered, they consist of just a summary"
This is because the web form provided when going to blueprints from Brainstorm, Only has a text entry for a "summary". There is no text area for a substantial expansion on the topic.
and Re: "lack the link to an actual specification document that details what they propose to be done."
The only facility for linking to a document suggests the use of a wiki - no information on where to go to set this up - no prior warning that it would be needed.
Not a very user friendly approach to soliciting ideas.
[this restricts the ability to make a blueprint, to the demographic who already have access to those facilities - not everybody]
I have got to tell you mgunes, and I do understand that it is not your "fault", but I think you have to agree that, when somebody wants to go to the effort of contributing an idea, that this form of hindrance is not good.
And then when they find that their additional requested input efforts haven't been acted upon, that it is because they haven't completed a process that was not made plain to them, nor made convenient.
In short - this is (and folks can imagine what ever colloquialism they like here) Rid-Ic-U-Lous!!
Please get the web admins to make a link to the wiki that should/could be used.
Maybe have the text area for the wiki appear in the blueprint's page (maybe as sub-frame).
But when folks are doing things wrong so often - there really needs to be an analysis of the system, and the service - to find out how to HELP people get it right.
... Rather than simply not processing it because it was not "right".
And the fact that you have replied to the above idea, suggests that there is no formal automatic notification sent to blueprint submitters, when they fail to make their blueprints correctly.
So either they don't get notification, or somebody who is as caring and helpful as your self has to manually draft up a response to help them out.
So all the rest of the (not just dry_carton's but everybodies') blueprints with insufficient additional information are also being ignored - what a waste?!
Surely something can be done about this.
This is Brainstorm - oh - is it not.
When the fella says ;
"Evaluate More Blueprints from Users"
rather than say - "oh well the reason why they are not happening is because ...".
We could maybe look for some solutions that help make it happen, and make use of "the reason why they are not happening" to point towards what Could be done to achieve it.
I hope the suggestions raised here provide , if not the solution, then at least some impedus to seek ways to reduce impedance to blueprints submission.
|
|
dry_carton wrote on the 16 Aug 08 at 14:10
| |
mgunes, what stops you (and other developers) from taking ideas submitted as blueprints, improving the blueprint, and implementing them? Are you only willing to work if users submit fully qualified blueprints?
|
Post your comment
|
