Re: Project Issues

1)  Letting people know they can take bugs on even if assigned is 
something we should just outline in the bug guidelines.  For now, going 
in and cleaning the MWT list and keeping it up should be fine.  It needs 
to be made *just* a task list though, all the other junk in there needs 
to go since it is all better delegated into individual reports.  ( Side 
note: All bugs are assigned to someone because Bugzilla is an atrocity 
of creation.)

2) For the guide to submitting bugs it is in a Google Doc right now.  There is the link and it is open for anyone with 
the link to edit in case anyone sees a place for improvement.  I jotted 
the basic idea down and Chris went in and made it clearer.  If there are 
no major issues with the doc then we can go ahead and find a place in 
the WPD namespace to put it.

Content Plans would be something that falls under the 
goals/roadmapping.  They would be some of the most immediate things to 
be worked on most likely, but still fall under that as far as planning goes.

3) Anonymous edits should at least be done as a trial to see if there 
are really any negative effects.  Quality could suffer, but overall we 
should be able to handle it if we get everything in order.  I think one 
issue overall is just having to fix a bunch of imported content; there 
are plenty of people who want to remain anonymous that could help with 
the massive task that we are basically telling to screw off because they 
won't sign up for an account.  It isn't always about naming either, 
sometimes people just don't want an account or they don't want their 
email somewhere.  There has been some spam in the Q&A from anonymous 
users, sure.  But, we allow it there and there have been some great 
comments from anonymous people.  So, it really comes down to we either 
open up anonymous edits on the wiki or we close them down everywhere.  
Along with that we should ignore any vague name in the IRC such as 


On 12/4/2012 12:00 AM, Julee Burdekin wrote:
> Hi, Garbee:
> Here are some thoughts:
> 1) Project management solution:
> I'm so looking forward to bug genie or some similar solution! Let me know
> if I can help. In the meantime, I thought your idea of filing bugs against
> the content was a great interim solution. If we can bubble up some of the
> highest priority ones on this list or in the meetings, maybe editors will
> volunteer to knock off the bugs. Also, currently all bugs are assigned. Is
> this deterring contribution? How can we let people know that it's OK to
> "take my bug, please." ;-)
> 2) Regarding getting editors to stick around:
> Yes, we have to make the process and resources easier and more
> transparent. I think the work you've been doing on the bug "[meta][6 Hour]
> - Improve Editors Guide"
> will help a lot.
> I also think having a content plans, such as the ones Chris Mills has been
> working on help define the overall direction of that technology area, e.g.:
> WPD plan for accessibility content
> Please let me now if I can help with this.
> 3) Looser administration:
> I'm not convinced that, once the session bug is fixed, logging in is a
> significant barrier. No-login makes editing easier, but would the quality
> of content suffer? (Interestingly Disqus is saying pseudonyms users post
> the highest quality news blog comments, while anon users the lowest.
> -post-the-most-highest-quality-comments-disqus-says/)
> 4) Goals:
> Absolutely agree. Let's define what it would take to get to Beta!
> Regards.
> Julee
> ----------------------------
> @adobejulee

Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2012 10:15:38 UTC