W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > November 2012

Re: [Telcon action] More detailed proposal for centralized feedback.

From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:51:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHZLcPqzwpJAx1R4RVMPwQpWcXiZQ0y5_NVowY-HboG-TX2ZOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Great work here, Garbee!
My thoughts in-line below...
+Scott

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote:

> My action this week from the telcon was to flush out more on how
> centralizing all feedback into a bugtracker would work.  Well, I have
> rethought certain aspects and found something would be missing.  So this
> email addresses what was missing and tries to explain how the system will
> work better (I hope.)  This is also iffy on too many real details since it
> is hard to really explain in words how things would be setup and used; I'm
> hoping for a demo to be online later in the week.  So, lets begin this
> beast.
>
> Let's start with a change in thinking for the comment system.  I was
> thinking at the end of last week when initially writing this proposal that
> we would do away with the current system completely; then, I realized it
> has a very useful purpose that centralizing into a bugtracker doesn't fill
> properly.  That is discussion.  As explained in bug 19847 [1] there is a
> very useful purpose to having some kind of comment system inline.  I think
> the current comment system could in fact stay in place but be renamed to
> "Discussion" as to the current "Comment".  From there, with a few tweaks it
> could be a much more useful tool.  The main tweak I am asking for is a flag
> system.  If a user sees an item in the discussion thread where it does not
> belong, they could flag it and that would have some kind of Admin UI to
> alert administrators of a new flag in that system.  This way the current
> system can stay in place with a few tweaks to give it a more accurate
> purpose.
>

How about instead of "Discussion" calling it "Issues"? - which is more
synonymic with "Bugs". If it can work as envisioned - with a direct link to
the bug tracking system - that would be terrific.

The "Discussion" pages may still be useful for the treatment of subjects
that are neither part of the standard nor problems with its documentation.
For example, controversy. Many of the standards currently in development
are at risk of undergoing changes for reasons that may be controversial.
The discussion pages can provide a forum for discussing these controversies
and thereby alert developers as to the status of a standard in development.


>
> With the comment system staying in place, what we would need to do is
> create some kind of form to be filled out that would let users report
> issues they see in the content.  This would create a new issue report in a
> certain category (I'm thinking "Feedback") which we could then move to the
> proper category.  I created a basic mockup of this form which is online
> [2].  People could also submit a report manually directly in the system if
> they want to, this UI is only for use in the docs themselves.  It is a very
> basic modal with a form for needed information.  That would be sent using
> the JSON API of Bug Genie into the system.  (I am still trying to find
> documentation on that API, it is there I just can't figure out where the
> Docs are.)
>

For the win, read the article's meta data and assign the categories
automagically, yes? Theoretically, the URL could help with this.


>
> With the feedback system in place, it all would just come down to using
> Bug Genie properly.  I am working on setting up a demo of this to actually
> be looked through.  For now though, I only have words.
>
> Using the system properly means compartmentalizing where issues are.  This
> is done in the same way our current tracker has Components.  We would just
> create a new "Project" which would take the place of the Component system.
>  For example, we would have all the components we have now but with the
> added Feedback category mentioned before in this email.  Here is a rundown
> of the categories:
> (If you have seen the current bugtracker, this block is mostly a repeat of
> what you know.)
> Content - Major content edits, content edit requests, ideas for new
> content.
> Comments Extension - Changed to Discussion Extension.  Any issues with
> this extension.
> Information Architecture - Issues about the organization of content.
> Infrastructure - Software or Installation issues.
> QA Forums - Issues with the Q&A System.
> Skin - Theme issues.
> Blog - Blog issues.
> Telcon - Telcon topic tracking.  This would work by first submitting an
> issue.  This is how we would raise issues to be talked about in the
> Telcons.  Once an issue is discussed and an action is decided on, we would
> assign the issue to the person the action is assigned to and relay what
> that action is.  Until the item is done with the Telcon, it remains in this
> section.  If an item is something that is decided on, but is no longer
> going to be brought up in a telcon, we would move it to an appropriate
> category (project).
> Feedback- from the frontend would be dumped here and people would sort
> from there into whichever category is appropriate.
>
> This becomes our centralized place for all feedback and tracking of what
> is being worked on.  We could even have a DocSprint section that we could
> move things into for DocSprints so things for those get tracked in here as
> well compared to a Google Spreadsheet.
>
> Anyone with an account would be free to submit, edit, and move bugs
> around.  We would also lock it down to show people only what they need.
>  There are a lot of features that almost no one needs.  We can hide those
> to keep the frontend for most people clean.  I *really* can't explain this
> lockdown too well in words; basically, the software is built with software
> development in mind.  That means many features are in here that we don't
> need using it from a project management standpoint.  I'm hoping to have a
> demo of the system up by the end of the week that fully works so you all
> can see.  We also wouldn't change the UI too much if at all unless people
> felt like taking that kind of job on.
>
> This system means:
> We don't deal with the Discussion pages at all.  We in fact need to remove
> any direct links to them.
>

See above. Discussion pages may still have a place here.


> We re-purpose the Comment system to be more targeted in use and still very
> helpful.
> Add an in-house bug tracker to handle complete project management.
> Handling software and content issues.
>
>
> The main question left is, what is the Q&A system used for at this point?
>  I don't really see it getting used too much right now for anything.  What
> it does handle we could find a way to dump into the bug system most likely
> if we felt like depreciating that part of the site.  I'm just not sure what
> to do with that part of the puzzle or if we should just keep it as a pet
> dragon.
>
> So if you are reading this far, first congratulations.  Second, any
> questions or thoughts on what is being proposed?
>
> -Garbee
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/**Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19847<https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19847>
> [2] http://static.jonathangarbee.**com/webplatform/demo/feedback_**
> form.html<http://static.jonathangarbee.com/webplatform/demo/feedback_form.html>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2012 18:51:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:35 UTC