|
History
| Log In
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see that JIRA is now made public on the blog by a notice for the Issue Tracker, which point to the wiki, which points to JIRA. The FVT is only available from the sidemenu on some web page now.
Jira rocks! We use it at work and I am very pleased to see the Labs using it. Intuitive interface and transparency of the development process can only help :-) Frankly I never used the old tool, it was way too confusing and took ages to find anything.
Thanks for your comments. :) In 1.15.1, we'll be emphasizing JIRA even more in the viewer, including a link to the Issue Tracker from Tools menu > Bug Reporting.
Please mention any other stray mentions of the FVT we should remove or amend. Boy, did you guys ever sneak this one in and put it over on everybody. I asked about the FVT a number of times and was told by Lindens that it was being made "better". Of course, folding it into JIRA does *not* make it better.
JIRA does *not* rock, but is 10 times more cumbersome and 100 times more ruled by a tiny cabal than the FVT So yeah, Torley, *you* hoped that FVT. But we didn't. And most of us didn't even know you would pull this stunt. Furthermore, you of course prepared the way for this stunt by having Angel Fluffy gut it and remove proposals and other people's content under the guise of cleaning it up. There's little one can do when a company decides they don't want any democracy in their *world* (it's not about democracy within the company, a separate issue). But let the record show how it was done - by stealth, without people's involvement. Prokofy. Jira is very much less cumbersome than the FVT. For one, it is organised into neat little projects and categories.
Secondly, it is much cleaner. A free for all is not democracy. It is anarchy. There is a very large difference. All closed issues here an be reopened Jirra allows sorting issues by filters. It has a more fair approval voting system. It allows comments on proposals, and as you so blazingly point out, it is designed for community moderation. Perhaps you wouldn't have a problem with this, had you not alienated yourself from almost every community in SL by firing your acid tongue at every person you meed. sneaked? hasn't Jira been talked about ont he blog over and over again ever since a long time ago? 0.o
"Sneak this one in"? That's comical.
I just looked back -- my first JIRA entry was created 14/Jun/07. That's a hell of a long "sneak" -- from June to November. As far as efficacy is concerned: this particular idea was intelligently commented upon, discussed, voted on, spurred an outside Open Source programmer to create the requested feature, was identified by the Lindens as worthy, and rolled successfully into the mainstream SL viewer. I assure you I'm not in any cabal -- a mere SL user. The Feature Voting Tool was a quasi-political popularity contest. The jira is a tool to actually move ideas forward, or, contrawise, debate why they should not be advanced. You can argue with the implementation, certainly, but at least it's a thorough off-the-shelf solution that doesn't require the Lindens to piss away their limited development resources re-inventing the wheel -- and maintaining it. It sure is a sneak, because there was no notification of it on the Linden blog, which is the principle means of communicating with the community. You'd have to "just know" that the JIRA, something that was said merely to be in "beta" and mainly for "bugs" was going to be stealthily taking over the FVT. Shame on you.
It's a cabal. No notification was made. Open Source=Closed Society. A small coterie of coders is not the public. It's not intelligently commented on when people most threatened by it close it -- they do it out of fear and cynicism. No, JIRA is ridiculous. It's 10 times more complicated than the FVT is. Furthermore, the JIRA has an extremely odious feature which wasn't part of the FVT -- on the JIRA, anyone can close anyone else's idea and freeze their votes. That was not possible on the FVT except by Lindens. Opening and closing constantly trying to stay one step ahead of these control-freaks isn't a viable solution. The idea that the FVT was "anarchy" is laughable to the extreme. It, too, was cumbersome. But its search worked better; your own issues and what you voted on were cleaner and more visible. Bugs and features need to be on separate mechanisms. We don't need neat little boxes and projects if we are not insect collectors, but living real people in a complex world. The JIRA is absolutely a popularity contest, too, only a far more sinister one, because the contest is held in secrecy and obscuracy and nobody even knows about the issues, as they are rendered too complex. The idea that it "took up the Lindens' time" is laughable. The Lindens never spent a second of time on the FVT until Angel Fluffy hijacked it and methodically culled every issue to his liking. Then they rubber-stamped it. Absolutely. Positively. Sneaked. You see cabals everywhere, Prok. You're trying to distance "them" from "us". Who made YOU the voice of the public? We are ordinary residents. We have friends. We have businesses. We have deep interest in SL as you do. And yet at every opportunity, you're trying to turn any experienced Jira user into thje enemy. "Them". The evil little cabal.
The cabal is anyone who doesn't agree with you. Please show examples of issues we've closed because we were "threatened by them". The FVT was a complete disgrace, and finding anything was meaningless. It didn't allow for comments. Votes were divided meaninglessly between hundreds of copies of the same issue. The whole thing was a complete mess. We need little boxes and projects, because this is a virtual world. It is a computer system. It requires organisation, systemisation, and logic to function properly. Noone is having an edit war. If an issue is reopened, I leave it that way. The only control freak here is you, Prok. You call so many others linden friends. Fic. recievers of special favors. Yet you fail to notice that despite your constant abuse, you are given special treatment yourself at every turn. You are given special time at triage meetings. 2 of your issues are on the agenda tomorrow just BECAUSE you screamed about it so much. You defer to lindens with apparent godlike reverence, regarding everyone else as unworthy of making any decision. Until one disagrees with you. http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-382#action_34140 And suddenly, Rob Linden is "biased and wrongful" and you're telling him what he "should" be doing. Where do you get the notionm that it's a popularity contest? I come to jira to learn, to help lindens organise, and to help make SL better. I don't give a damn about popularity. You're right about one thing. Lindens barely bothered with the FVT. Because it was an unworkeable, unfeasible mess. No good could come of something like that. "Shame on you" ? Perhaps it's a shame to be able to read plain English, but so be it.
"No notification was made" -- except the 300+ hits on the Second Life blog revealed by Googling "site:blog.secondlife.com jira". That includes the rather clearcut http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/31/issue-tracker-login-bug-fixed/ from back at the end of May. Not to mention the April 30 entry http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/04/30/project-open-letter/ which EXPLICITLY states the following: "Public JIRA - This new site will soon completely replace the feature voting tool and the known issues page." There's a wide range of reading skills and attention spans, of course, so this may have constituted "sneakiness" in some minds -- but not mine. Everything I know about the existence of and plans for the JIRA I learned by reading the Second Life blog. There were no special cabalistic messages transmitted to me via my tooth fillings. Anyway: it's clearly a moot point. Per the April blogspot, the FVT was being retired. Can a there be disagreement, cogent discussion, and perhaps improvement in the way SL' external JIRA operation is structured? Certainly. Should there be a streamlined "wizard' to lead users through finding or creating a new issue? Perhaps --there is already an issue and discussion under way on that idea, in fact.. WarKirby, I see cabals *where they exist* and a proposal by *you* with only 5 votes pushed through despite even some caution for a time by Torley, with *no notification that this was happening in this way on the Blog* is indeed a cabal. No one who went to enormous trouble to get lots of votes on the old FVT, sometimes hundreds, got any personal automatic notification, which they do with bug reports now made through the viewer, and no blog reporting.
No, it's not about agreeing with me; it's about making an accessible democratic governance tool, even if it does take place within the context of a non-democracy -- for now -- a private company. But as they are open-sourcing this software, the cabal doesn't get to go on controlling it. This is about process, not personalities. The cabal is anyone who thinks that small groups of people can decide on behalf of the many merely due to technical expertise. They sneer at representative democracy because media can be manipulated and candidates raise money and buy votes, but they make something far worse in its place. This is a structural and procedural problem, not a personality problem. I've proposed in Web 399 an easy way to make duplicates proposals be merged by merely having a mechanism to enable me to propose to that duplicate a move to merge our issues. I generate a request to him; he agrees; together we make a new description and fill it in the box, and when we press PRINT on the new merged template box in the editable space, all the unique votes get a notification to vote for the new merged feature request. Alternatively, the owner of a proposal can automatically ask all his voters if they can concede to merger with another number. Don't tell me this is too complex or can't be done -- it's a yes/no check off box or button. I didn't find the FVT a complete disgrace at all. It takes time for user education, and changes needed to be done to the system tiself, it didn't need to be destroyed, allowing a handful of people destroy other's content, something that goes against the letter and spirit of Second Life in appalling ways. Comments were made on blogs. Comments can easily be added to a new revised system. There isn't anything messy about it unless you find that anything that isn't in a neat, technically-rendered list of issues for you to control is "messy". We can't render everything into a little box and a project controlled by tekkies merely because it is a digitalized world because it has people in it; people need not be controlled by machines. And there even mechanized features that can easily be added to these tools, once you have the political will to add basic things like 'no" votes, motions to merge, time-outs. All of these ARE mechanical improvements that there isn't the good will to add, because what's REALLY happening here is that a cabal of coders are trying to control the tools as their own agenda The organization, systematization, and logic isn't always demonstrable or persuasive. People can use all these capacities and yet disagree. A decision to make all for-sale objects for sale is a political objective about populating search, perhaps driven by commercial interests to look better -- it's not clear. Therefore proposals to revise and undo the damage of this political concept need to be tolerated, and it proves difficult precisely because coders believe that the political decisions that other coders make within their small grouping is "right" and demonstrably so -- yet it is not to anyone outside the magic circle. I'm focusing on process, not this or that particular issue. I don't at all demand special treatment for my issues. The decision to put some issue on the agenda isn't mine. I can't even work the ridiculously stupid agenda-maker with perl scripts and every other arcane stupid thing on int such as to put my bugs in. I believe my bugs/features were put on there merely to handily get rid of them by getting the regulars who show up at these meeting to savage them. An awful system.\ As for the problem of non-transferable objects showing up in search, this problem was brought to the Sheep's attention by community outrage, and in an effort to avoid that same mistake being made by the Lindens on rolling out the new search, I pushed it very hard. It was indeed a major problem, causing massive confusion and invasion of privacy. To their credit, the Lindens, especially with the Sheep example before them, fixed at least part of the problem by making it possible to uncheck those non-transfer objects, and pushed it into a patch. That's because logic and reason was able to prevail, despite the phalanx of fanboyz and Lindens who tried to close, undermine, and distract from this issue. It's merely a classic illustration of how the coding class makes decisions for the many, and the merchant class in particular is outraged at what the implications are, and isn't consulted and has to work extra hard to reverse the damage. I would challenge you to find a case where I have "deferred to Lindens with godlike reverence." I guess you have never read my blog? Of course I challenge them when I think they are wrong. Why can't we? This stuff is going to be open sourcing! this stuff is in BETA now! Are we supposed to creep around like timid rabbits?! Lindens must see themselves as facilitators of a very grand world-historically-important project, as curators in the public interest of something very much bigger than themselves. Fierce fanboyz gathering around them with blind and abject loyalty doesn't help them fulfill their historical mission. Having to vote up a bug in this fashion, in ways in which there aren't reasonable ways to enlist and educate the entire community, or even some reasonable 10-20 percent of regular users, means a tiny cabal keeps running it by default. A revised Feature Voting System is an important way to flag problems and suggestions for bettering SL and for getting people organized around issues that matter to them. Adding the ability to vote "no" and merge bills as in a real parliament will make it that much more compelling. Vote Web 399. Coyote, I read ever single blog every put out by the Lindens. I don't experience any reading comprehension issues.
Notification that bugs would not be acceptable in the viewer, and now had to go through the JIRA, isn't about the FVT, so that doesn't count. The April 30 letter is precisely what is misleading! Because it makes it seem that this new JIRA beta will be BETTER than the FVT and will enable MORE and EASIER participation -- when in fact everyone outside the little magic circle here can see that it is FAR WORSE, far less intuitive, complex to use, with a special jargon, even, where words don't mean what they mean.. Here's what the April 30 blog VERY MISLEADINGLY stated: "Torley has been migrating the feature voting tool proposals to this new site, and will soon be completing the transition. In the meantime, please feel free to log-in with your Second Life name and password and check it out" False! She didn't migrate anything. She CLOSED IT and all the ideas that were once on the FVT are now GONE. The votes are WIPED OUT. MIGRATING to me means not some hollow, burn out shell, but the same ideas we had with the same votes merged into a new feature set. We got no notification that instead they were DESTROYED and had to be restarted again. NONE!!!! That's really criminal. Naturally you don't find anything wrong with this because you had no issues or votes at stake, like issues involving groups or the right to vote "no" or land tools. None of this matters to you, evidently, so you figure people can "just now" and come back and revise it. Some people like Travis stopped waiting for the Lindens to add something to the viewer, and made Ban-Link themselves to control their venues (not a tool I support). "Anyway: it's clearly a moot point. Per the April blogspot, the FVT was being retired". "Migrated" doesn't mean "retired" or "destroyed" it means "transported and merged". That was not done. I've concluded that in the current environment with the current batch of "good citizens" that new feature wizards and such are not a solution to user apathy or confusion or frustration. Only taking the Feature Voter out of the system will work. Bugs are items that people are power users or tekkies will bother with, and that's a minority. Features should have much more involvement, and it must be made more flexible and open to encourage such involvement. THe FVT does not seem to be acessiblke from www.secondlife.com. I'm closing this issue as fixed.
I'm tired of arguing with you, prok. I have better things to do than listen to your incessant ranting. Thanks for resolving this, WarKirby -- I'll confirm this change was recently made.
send the proposals fromt he old fvt )and the bug thingy too) to their creators so they can repost on jira if desired - http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/WEB-400
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
New Feature
Closed
Normal
Feature Voting Tool -> Close Site
This Issue Tracker is still in beta. We're adding features and working kinks out. As such, instabilities are expected, and we're observing the growth as more Residents become accustomed to using it. It's decidedly a smoother transition.
So the answer is: we hope that yes, the FVT will be closed. Not yet, but eventually.