[openbeos] Re: BugZilla => Trac

Hi Jorge,

"Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> It is a problem. By forcing people to use Trac in the same subdomain 
> as 
> the beta website, you are indirectly legitimizing a beta website that 
> is 
> still in development. You have now created two parallel worlds that 
> are 
> prone to confusion and mixed messages.

Okay, how can anyone take a website under the subdomain "plonetest" for 
real? Especially when it has been stated publically (in this list) that 
this is the testbed for the new site?

> If you want to make sure that everyone understand that this a live 
> beta, 
> make it obvious. Put a "BETA" stamp on the haiku logo that shows on 
> the 
> header of every page, and add something like the following text 
> somewhere prominent in the front page:

Nevertheless, that's a good idea, point taken!

> >> I also question that two people (that happen to be engineers) seem 
> > > to 
> >> have empowered themselves to make the decision to migrate the 
> >> website, 
[...]
> I am not making attacks. If it came across as a personal attack, I 
> apologize. But my intention is simply to make people aware of the 
> impact 
> that this can have.

That sounds to me like an attack - and it would certainly help me to 
understand what you think it impacts if you would actually explaining 
it.
The occasional visitor might have a look at the bug tracker, he might 
even wonder about that "plonetest" subdomain, and he will also 
certainly miss a link back to the site (as with the old bug tracker, 
too). However, that's as far as it goes IMO.
Everyone actually logging into Trac will have a reason for doing so 
(ie. will have used Haiku at this stage, where it's not really easy to 
get and try), and only they will see the new website. They probably 
already know about this, anyway; it's not like we have 200 people 
reporting bugs and a real userbase.

> > Sure it has, IMO (and IMO only) it's just not *that* important at 
> > this 
> > point. It will become much more important in the future.
> Marketing may be more important now than after you release Haiku. It 
> is 
> a lot easier to market something that is finished, than something 
> that 
> is in the process of being made (like Haiku now). You may need to 
> make 
> strategic changes in your marketing depending on the development 
> stage 
> you are at, but marketing is always important.

You keep telling this, and I noticed, but why do you think marketing is 
so important at this stage, when only very few people know about us and 
care?
If you had already started trying to make Haiku more known in some way, 
it might be different, but have you? Also note, that our *current* site 
is not really ready to attract new people, as it's so outdated. And 
only very few people have the rights to update it for whatever weird 
reason. 
So right now, trying to show Haiku to more people might also just be 
counterproductive because of the website. And that's why we're a bit in 
a rush, we left it untouched for too long.

> I am not referring to Trac specifically, but to the new website 
> project 
> as a whole (from several months ago). It leaves a very bad taste and 
> a 
> strong sense of unilateralism when somebody from the outside tries to 
> help on an open mailing list, his opinions are shot down, and then a 
> few 
> privileged decide behind doors to do what this person had proposed in 
> the first place.
> 
> This is what happened to me in the haiku-web mailing list. Now, tell 
> me, 
> how is that open? How do you expect people to join and/or contribute 
> if 

Would you care to be more specific? I'm certainly not going through the 
list's archive and try to shut your arguments down. I'm listening on 
that list, too, and I didn't notice anything in that regard, though.

> you are not receptive to ideas from others, and always hide behind 
> the 
> "it's been decided" smoke screen?
> 
> Haiku seems to have a very inward centered view of things. Because 
> the 
> admins discussed or voted on something (behind doors), it does not 
> make 
> it legitimate in the eyes of the people looking from outside.
> 
> That is the closedness that Haiku has: you setup an open mailing 
> list, 
> implicitly encourage people to contribute, and then make a decision 
> behind doors, no explanations given to anyone outside of the admins. 
> If 
> someone on the list asks "why did you...?", Haiku's typical answer is 
> "it has been decided, so don't beat the dead horse".

Sorry, but I think that's a completely unrealistic POV. Usually, 
discussions start publicly, and we're listening to their input, and 
then make a decision. It's neither possible nor desirable to always 
make public decisions and include everyone - it happens if there is 
consensus, but that doesn't happen so often. Usually everyone keeps 
yelling their opinion, but neither party is really listening to the 
arguments (what? there are even arguments?) if any.

In the particular case of the website backend, it was even me who 
pushed things, because I was sick of waiting for that dream CMS. And 
suddenly there was a solution (Drupal) for the problem we had for 
months. *If* you're uncool with how this went: you had approximately a 
whole year to make a better suggestion. So where's the rush?

> That is not my idea of openness or collaboration, and something has 
> gotta change. I will propose to the admins that we publish at least a 
> summary of the topics discussed and the decisions made on the weekly 
> admin meetings.

That's fine with me, but someone has got to do it. But I don't really 
get your point in doing it: what's the difference if you hear from a 
decision via an admin meeting log, or via an announcement on our 
website?
I still think that the discussed topics could be of interest to others, 
as well, though, I just don't see what it has to do with the problem 
you see.

> everybody else for that matter), but that does not mean that I have 
> to 
> refrain from pointing out problems when I see them.

Nor shouldn't you, but as I'm sure you know, it's important how you do 
it.

> All your points about the existing website are taken, but since you 
> are 
> redoing it, try to do it right. Last week, I think I pointed out the 
> problems of communications that Haiku has on the mailing list, and 
> this 
> is a great opportunity to address those issues. Please, give it 
> chance 
> to happen.

I'm all in favour of doing it right, but since Waldemar is trying to 
push the new website, we have to talk about this, too. Why exactly 
don't you think it's not ready yet? I'm sure Waldemar is open to 
arguments. Discussions can only work right if you make constructive 
arguments.

> I did not say Waldemar was sloppy; I said that his rushing of the 
> transition makes the project look sloppy. You seem to take it lightly 
> that he decided to make the switch to Trac without announcing or even 
> consulting it with anyone else (that's the unilateralism and lack of 
> collaboration), but I don't, because I think it does make us look 
> sloppy 
> and disorganized.

It makes us look sloppy and disorganized where we actually are 
disorganized and sloppy, obviously. I agree with you that Waldemar 
could have done it better, but it's only the bug tracker; he didn't 
accidently release Haiku or married Michael Phipps without asking us.

> >> Anyway, what's the rush to migrate today no matter what? Why can't 
> > > we 
> >> wait a few more weeks until we get it right? We have waited 5 
> > > years 
> >> for Haiku, and we cannot wait a little longer to get a website 
> > > right?
> > We can, yes, the question is just (apart from the looks): why?
> For the same reasons that you would not release Haiku 1.0 now and say 
> "well, it is better than it was last year; we will improve it little 
> by 
> little" and smile away. It is simply not ready.

Sure, but consider this: it's much better than the previous release. 
That one continues to give other people bad impressions; if the new 
(and unfinished) website makes a little less bad impressions, that's 
already an improvement.
So if we'd make the transition now, we would need to make it clear that 
this is not the final site yet, but that we'd felt that a visit to it 
is already more worthwhile than one to our current site.

With Haiku, we're in a better position, because we haven't released 
anything yet. But that was hardly an option for the website :)

> The existing website is VERY classy, and it is easy to navigate. The 
> new 
> website may have more content that is more up-to-date, but it's 
> design 
> is subpar, and the content is quite disorganized, so it is difficult 
> to 
> find stuff.

I think the navigation of the current site is just bad. The menus 
itself provide many good links, but that's about it; their titles are 
not really clear, and all other navigation is not really working that 
well. At least I never found what I was looking for.
The new site uses a completely different approach, though, and I agree 
that this might turn out as a bad idea, but I'd be okay with giving it 
a try.

> But more importantly, the new website has absolutely no separation 
> between official content and contributed content; it looks like 
> anybody 
> can post pretty much anywhere, which is a recipe for miscommunication 
> (as the one we had with the icon contest).

Yes, that's definitely a problem, it would be nice to separate them 
stronger from each other.

> > BTW we're already waiting more than a year for this new website.
> I don't know who made you wait that long, but the actual work on the 
> website was started about a month or so ago. I don't know what 
> happened 
> in the 10 - 11 months prior to actually getting started, but it 
> should 
> not be a reason to rush it out the door.

As I already said, they were waiting for *the* CMS to appear. Sure, 
there is no reason to rush things, but I'm also not that comfortable 
with waiting for no reason - ie. it's nice to see that you start to 
give actual arguments now :-)

Bye,
   Axel.

Other related posts: