Category talk:Feature Requests - Revision history

Meghan Dench at 18:33, 19 March 2008

2008-03-19T18:33:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 19 March 2008
Line 36:		Line 36:
	[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 00:26, 22 February 2007 (PST)		[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 00:26, 22 February 2007 (PST)
	:Like I said above I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Jira can link to here and vice versa for complex feature requests. Some straightforward requests might be only in Jira. [[User:Gigs Taggart\|Gigs Taggart]] 12:56, 24 February 2007 (PST)		:Like I said above I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Jira can link to here and vice versa for complex feature requests. Some straightforward requests might be only in Jira. [[User:Gigs Taggart\|Gigs Taggart]] 12:56, 24 February 2007 (PST)

			== PJira Assign ==

			Iridium is no longer at the lab... so who do we contact?
			How do we be able to Assign on PJira?
			[[User:Meghan Dench\|Meghan Dench]] 11:33, 19 March 2008 (PDT)

Gigs Taggart: /* Dumb Question */

2007-02-24T20:56:01Z

Dumb Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 24 February 2007
Line 35:		Line 35:

	[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 00:26, 22 February 2007 (PST)		[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 00:26, 22 February 2007 (PST)
			:Like I said above I don't think they are mutually exclusive. Jira can link to here and vice versa for complex feature requests. Some straightforward requests might be only in Jira. [[User:Gigs Taggart\|Gigs Taggart]] 12:56, 24 February 2007 (PST)

Gigs Taggart: /* Proprosal: Inclusion policy */

2007-02-24T20:42:19Z

Proprosal: Inclusion policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:42, 24 February 2007
Line 26:		Line 26:
	# Should their be a process for de-listing feature requests ?		# Should their be a process for de-listing feature requests ?
	[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:50, 21 February 2007 (PST)		[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:50, 21 February 2007 (PST)
			:This should be discussed. I do think it's LL's intention to use Jira for feature voting in the end. I view the wiki as a place to put the details on implementation and design discussion. A jire feature request could simply be a link to the wiki in some cases. I wouldn't worry much about redundancy. The wiki takes the place of what the forum used to be for feature requests, and Jira takes the place of the old FVT. Regarding the tiny snippets you put in this category in User: namespaces, I'm going to get rid of them. If the user wants to flesh them out into full articles and move them back into this category (and out of their namespace) then I won't argue. [[User:Gigs Taggart\|Gigs Taggart]] 12:42, 24 February 2007 (PST)

	== Dumb Question ==		== Dumb Question ==

SignpostMarv Martin: Dumb Question

2007-02-22T08:26:36Z

Dumb Question

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:26, 22 February 2007
Line 26:		Line 26:
	# Should their be a process for de-listing feature requests ?		# Should their be a process for de-listing feature requests ?
	[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:50, 21 February 2007 (PST)		[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:50, 21 February 2007 (PST)

			== Dumb Question ==

			I just realised... since Gigs brought up using JIRA for voting, why don't we use it for feature requests as well ? (it has the New Feature option when filing a bug).

			This would probably be the appropriate venue for the aforementioned features requests that would be kept in the user-space, and any feature requests that are more complex ([[Plugin architecture]], and my own eccentric interpretation of [[User:Carnildo Greenacre/Night Skies\|Night Skies]] would remain on the Wiki.

			[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 00:26, 22 February 2007 (PST)

SignpostMarv Martin: Proprosal: Inclusion policy

2007-02-22T05:50:05Z

Proprosal: Inclusion policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:50, 21 February 2007
Line 19:		Line 19:
	:::::: Sounds like this proposal is rather redundant.		:::::: Sounds like this proposal is rather redundant.
	:::::: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:35, 21 February 2007 (PST)		:::::: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:35, 21 February 2007 (PST)

			== Proprosal: Inclusion policy ==

			# Policy on migration/duplication of feature requsts listed in the voting tool.
			# Should level of seriousness dictate whether or not a feature be listed ?
			# Should their be a process for de-listing feature requests ?
			[[User:SignpostMarv Martin\|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:50, 21 February 2007 (PST)

SignpostMarv Martin: moved

2007-02-22T05:45:54Z

moved

New page

== Proposal: No User Pages in Feature Request Category ==

The feature pages that signpost moved into people's user namespace (without asking anyone) are crudding up the category now. I propose that if a feature request is not well thought out enough to be in the main namespace, it shouldn't be in the category either. There's no point to link to articles we shouldn't edit in the User namespaces.

Implementation of this proposal would require going through the feature request category, moving well developed ideas to their own article outside the user namespace, and removing the category tag from the rest of them. [[User:Gigs Taggart|Gigs Taggart]] 14:17, 21 February 2007 (PST)

: What about under-developed ideas.....
: You going to wipe out all trace of them or leave them in the user-space ?
: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 17:27, 21 February 2007 (PST)

:: Also, by preventing Residents from working on feature proposals in their user-space, you either force them to put half-baked articles into the main namespace, or stop them from letting other Residents know what they're working on.
:: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 19:08, 21 February 2007 (PST)
:::They can do whatever they want in their own user space, the category just shouldn't be crudded up with it. [[User:Gigs Taggart|Gigs Taggart]] 20:06, 21 February 2007 (PST)
::::So.... what's the threshold for what constitutes a half-baked idea to a one that warrants existance in the main namespace ?
::::[[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 20:24, 21 February 2007 (PST)
:::::The same standard that applies to any other article. Stop being dense. [[User:Gigs Taggart|Gigs Taggart]] 20:51, 21 February 2007 (PST)
::::::# '''They can do whatever they want in their own user space'''
::::::# '''The same standard that applies to any other article.'''
:::::: Sounds like this proposal is rather redundant.
:::::: [[User:SignpostMarv Martin|SignpostMarv Martin]] 21:35, 21 February 2007 (PST)