File visualization

Wed Jun 18 11:04:33 BRT 2014

As one of the developers that proposed this idea, I think I should also
express myself.

1. Why did we agree to this procedure Daniel described?

Because we were (are) having constant divergences about features
included/refactored on Noosfero with different actors of the community.
We thought that by requiring a community discussion about every
development before hand would solve this problem.

2. Why is this solution not working?

Because this process is very bureaucratic, people sometimes forget to do
it, AI sometimes do not have sufficient information, some changes have
unpredictable consequences, developers sometimes are not in the mood for
epic discussions with the community, the reviewers do not have a
structured way to control which feature was properly discussed on the
list while reviewing it, sometimes what everyone thinks in the community
is not the solution the developer wants to implement, etc.

3. Is this solution useless than?

Not at all. Having a discussion with the community about a feature is a
very useful tool for the developer. It usually helps me have a different
perspective about things I'm developing. Also this allows the feature to
be reviewed also on the level of concept, which is nice.

4. What can we do to make it work?

Try. We can't always expect things to work the way we want. We can't
always expect that features will beautifully go through our predicted
procedure. We can't afford to have this same discussion everytime
something goes wrong. The best we can do is try to do it right and be
resilient to try to solve the problem when something goes wrong instead
of getting lured into cycle discussions about the process.

We need to alleviate the climate within the community. Remember that we
are working together and not trying to undermine each other.

Leandro Nunes escreveu isso ai:
> Looikng for my emails i received notification about ActionItem3119 in  29
> april, 01 may, 06 june, 7 june.
> 
> The procedure Daniel showed doens't works. Look at this.
>   1. New AI must be created, with sufficient information (not only title
> but some description)
> 
> What is sufficient? It's an abstract concept. So this is a big problem.
> 
> Look theses ActionItem made by eita.
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3168
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3169
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3149
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3156
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3101
> 
> They are clear enough?
> For me no.
> 
> Did you saw me crucify Braulio or Eita because of this?
> No. You will never see that.
> 
> Because I believe he made his better with the time he had.
> 
> This is what I assume.
> 
> 2. A message with the proposal is sent to the list
> 
> Any of these ActionItem was sent for the list?
> I look for them here I and didn't found anything.
> 
> 3. If in 1 week there is no negative reaction, then everything is ok. If
> there are reactions to the proposal, it should be discussed before sending
> the code, so that the developper doesn't spend time developping something
> that won't be accepted. This discussion would be done by the list until a
> common consensual solution would be found.
> 
> If it wasn't sent to the list this step couldn't be done ok?
> 
> 4. When the developper concludes the code and makes merge-request, it
> should be put as a link to the code in the AI page.
> 
> This was done.
> 
> Theses ActionItem is just some of them that I found quickly here.
> Of course there is a lot of ActionItem like this.
> 
> So. Eita doesn't follow his "own procedure" and Eita wants everybody else
> follow It.  Really?
> 
> I am not criticizing Eita because they don't follow the procedure. All the
> ActionItem that I am interest  I saw the ActionItem description and I make
> a comment there. Simple like that.
> 
> Things are more natural that some people think.
> The ActionItem creation is a way that the project found to make public some
> ideas about something.
> Some developer could make an excelent contribuition for the project without
> make an ActionItem and because He doesn't follow the procedure we will not
> accept. Is this that you propose?
> If a developer do that He made an risk option beacuse his contribuition
> could not be applied depends on how intrusive it is.
> In other  words the ActionItem creation is a good practice to make your
> contribuition be accepted more quickly.
> The more intrusive the contribution is greater the need for explanation and
> detail, sometimes with videos and/or prototypes.
> If something 'wrong' is accepted by the core team It should be changed and
> It is not the previously discussion in the list that will avoid that these
> things happen.
> It is important to say that I think all active noosfero developers create
> the action item before code creation and they naturally put some
> description about what will be done. Of course that some mistake could be
> done, but I think procedures have to be emphasized always and We could not
> crucify people because something wrong happens because we put people away
> from the project discussion.
> If you insist with something that doesn't work just because is what you
> think is a good practice you will just make people not respect everything
> you say.
> First of all you have to convince people that something you think is
> important after that you could request people to work like you propose.
> Please do that based in solid arguments not based in a community meeting
> certainly at lest half of the active developers don't participate of it for
> different reasons.
> Free software doesn't works with only "presencial" meetings.
> I don't think if you pay attention carefully but We have this discussion
> recurrently. This is because some people accept that procedure like an
> absolutly truth write in stones just because is convinient as argument in a
> discussion.
> 
> That procedure never exists in fact.
> 
> Wake up people. You will not change a way how free software ever works
> proposing a boring way based on more works for developers to apply
> improvements or fix bugs.
> 
> If you guys want's to live a ilusion go ahead.
> I am off ;)
> 
> 
> PS: I will not waste my time with this loop discussion anymore.
> 
> -- 
> Dois Axé!!!
> 
> -----
> "Comece fazendo o que é necessário, depois o que é possível e de repente
> você estará fazendo o impossível."
>                                    São Francisco de Assis
> Leandro Nunes

> _______________________________________________
> Noosfero-dev mailing list
> Noosfero-dev at listas.softwarelivre.org
> http://listas.softwarelivre.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/noosfero-dev

-- 
Rodrigo Souto <rodrigo at colivre.coop.br> :: 55 71 8131-7714
Colivre - Cooperativa de Tecnologias Livres
http://www.colivre.coop.br/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/noosfero-dev/attachments/20140618/66b0806a/attachment.pgp>