openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <>
Subject Re: A question about existing practices
Date Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:15:00 GMT
On 3/19/13 5:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:19 AM, RGB ES <> wrote:
>> 2013/3/19 Rob Weir <>
>>> On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Guenter Marxen
>>> <> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Am 18.03.2013 19:05, schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>> There is no consensus here to eliminate or reset the votes. Some who
>>>>> 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
>>>> (
>>>> 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 The issue is not at all outdated!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.

I believe this thread will not bring any new information and we should
probably let die it.

Issues with votes are seen still as valid by some people and so let
these issues in BZ as they are. We should not give any guarantee that an
issue with many votes will be fixed in a future version. We should
better communicate that votes are one instrument to express additional
demand for an issue or RFE that developers potentially take into account
to set their own priorities.

I don't see that we can do more now but we should watch these issues to
ensure that we don't miss some really important ideas or bugfixes.


> -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
>>>> ( 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:
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message