- From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 12:02:24 +0100
- To: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
- Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. Chris Mills Open standards evangelist, Opera Software W3C fellow Co-chair, web education community group, W3C * Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://my.opera.com/chrismills/blog/2012/07/12/practical-css3-my-book-is-finally-published) * Contribute to web education: http://www.w3.org/community/webed/ On 29 Oct 2012, at 00:43, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote: > So, overall I think the comment system could be done with. Here is my sanity flow: > > 1) We do create an admin tool to track status of the flags that all admins have access too. This would be very useful and allow the current flag system to stay in place which is super useful. > > 2) We get a bugtracker hosted on the site that works with the Single Sign On system (hopefully sessions will work right.) This would allow us to do three important things: > 2-1) Track bugs locally without the need for an extra account. > 2-2) Use a section of the tracker for content collaboration. > 2-3) Use it as a comment system of sorts. If someone has a comment we would have a section for it and they can link to the URL they are talking about and give the feedback. > > Doing this would allow us a few centralized places to manage things compared to the current 3 or 4. Along with bringing things more in-house using the SSO. > > I think integrating the contact system and a bug tracker is asking for a bit more than we need. Simply making a tracker on-site and having a standard way to "comment" using it would suffice. The comment system could be much more useful if we had a global overview or RSS feed of comments being added, but when we could simply have a bugtracker do it I don't see the need to complicate things more. > > Thoughts? > > On 10/26/2012 10:41 AM, Chris Mills wrote: >> I am increasingly getting this feeling too. I definitely think we should refrain from using the discussion pages, even thought they are useful for recording things like editorial discussions that you don't want the average reader to see. But we should instead have a section of the edit forms for recording such content, so we don't end up with two pages to do the job of one, for each article. >> >> Flags are useful, but very hard to track/follow up on. To keep this manageable, should we split the articles up into sections, and give different people responsibility for each one, to check each load of articles over every month or so, to make sure there is no outstanding work to do on each one? and/or do we need a giant admin tool that shows us the status of every page on the site, along with outstanding work on each one? This is going to get really hard to track. >> >> In my mind, editorial comments are really for recording small notes on changes needed to the wording/content/structure of pages. The bugzilla should be used for larger requests. Although editorial comments again seem really hard to track. Can you see an overview of them all somewhere? It also doesn't seem possible to get rid of them, or mark them as resolved when they are completed. >> >> Should we get rid of them, and just use bugzilla? Or even better, perhaps we could combine the two somehow? Make it so that you can enter in bugzilla a URL pointing to a document fragment on WPD, and if it is a valid one, the bugzilla comment shows up at that position on WPD? And then when you resolve that comment, it no longer shows up on WPD? And when you click an "Add comment" button on a WPD page, you can enter a comment, and let generates an entry in bugzilla? >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Chris Mills >> Open standards evangelist and dev.opera.com editor, Opera Software >> Co-chair, web education community group, W3C >> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://my.opera.com/chrismills/blog/2012/07/12/practical-css3-my-book-is-finally-published) >> >> * Try Opera: http://www.opera.com >> * Learn about the latest open standards technologies and techniques: http://dev.opera.com >> * Contribute to web education: http://www.w3.org/community/webed/ >> >> On 25 Oct 2012, at 01:55, Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm not entirely sure (I'd love for others to chime in), but if I remember correctly the thinking was that using the "Discussion" pages feature in MediaWiki wasn't going to cut it because it was too heavyweight. >>> >>> I agree that we have too many tools (flags/editorial notes/comments/bugzilla) and don't have a great sense of what precisely to use each for. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 9:15 AM, <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote: >>> I'm not quite sure exactly what the commenting system is for. It seems to be getting used most for just general feedback like "Great Site" or "Looking good." A few comments are trying to get content organized. So what was the intended purpose of the comment system? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Garbee >>> >>> >> > >
Received on Monday, 29 October 2012 11:02:45 UTC