[openbeos] Re: BugZilla => Trac
- From: "Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:40:45 -0700
Hi Axel,
Axel Dörfler wrote:
"Jorge G. Mare (a.k.a. Koki)" <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I will tell you what the problem with the new website is: the website
is
a HUGE part of marketing, and I do not like it. As it is now, it
looks
awful, it is disorganized, and it has no focus whatsoever. It is
nothing
more than a blog to wich Trac has been added.
I don't think the website should be published now either. However, I
have *no* problem with the switch to Trac, and how it went. Could it
have been better? Sure. Is it a problem? Not really.
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.
I also question that two people (that happen to be engineers) seem to
have empowered themselves to make the decision to migrate the
website,
when that has such a big impact in marketing communications, an area
that is not their competence.
Oh, I'm afraid you'll have to do something like that more often in the
future (that's not a threat, just a prediction) :-)
We never really did that, and I think it's a bit too early for
attacking us like this: AFAICT Waldemar only tried to push things,
while I still don't think the website itself is ready; even though it's
much better than the old site right now, no matter what's good or bad
for marketing, IMO.
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.
[...]
something that has an impact on marketing communications. This one
has,
and big time (even when you may think it does not).
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.
I also question the lack of teamwork. The process in which the new
website has been handled is typical of the lack of collaborative
effort
and coordination. It was full of unilateral decisions and actions
(which
showed slopiness), from the selection of the backend, to things like
suddenly dropping some of the existing forums, then moving from
Bugzilla
to Trac after the fact (even when there were still problems), and now
pretending that one person or two have the decision power to say when
the website is ready for transition.
All of these items were discussed in team meetings or over the (admin)
mailing list - the only thing you can criticize is the timing, because
we haven't set any deadlines or specific dates as a team.
We've tested Trac in another host for quite some time, and no one using
it had any problems with it. Just because you entered the picture late
(and therefore couldn't take part in these discussions) doesn't mean
there is a lack of a collaborative effort.
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
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".
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.
It looks to me like haiku-os.org has been turned into waldemar.org,
and
I don't like that, nor do I think it is good for Haiku if we want to
work as a team.
We all agreed on needing a new site, and Waldemar stepped in to do the
work - where is the exact problem with that? Now he wants to switch to
the new site (which I can understand, sure), but of course, he won't
decide this alone, he's just pushing.
No problem with that. I had said it several times and I will repeat it:
I really appreciate the work that is being done by Waldemar (and
everybody else for that matter), but that does not mean that I have to
refrain from pointing out problems when I see them.
Axel: that we are still in development is no justification for
showing
sloppiness. The website is a reflection of what we are doing, and we
should strive to both look the best possible, and to use it smartly
as a
tool to reach our target audience; the new website does not
accomplish
either of this goals.
IMO the old web site actually hurts us more in our daily operation:
while it looks better, it's severly outdated, it doesn't show that
we're making progress, that we're a living project; it doesn't create
any momentum at all. Only frequently questions like "I'm using the
buildtools from your site but cannot compile Haiku".
If you're following Haiku, there is almost never a reason to look at
our site; it there is a news item, you can shortly see it on the news
sites anyway - and apart from that, nothing happens.
The Wiki is a much better resource for (correct) information than our
website.
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.
And making mistakes like Waldemar with his first try to convert the bug
database is not just sloppy, it's human. I like seeing this much better
than hiding it and pretending we're perfect.
Sure, he should have publicly set a deadline for the switch, and
discussed it before with us. But considering he didn't, the switch went
very smooth for that ;-)
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.
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.
What do you think the old site does better than the new one? I can only
name one thing: it looks more professional. The navigation is bad, the
contents are even worse.
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.
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).
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.
What
you see at http://plonetest.haiku-os.org/ is a live beta of the new
site - if you have complaints with it, feel free to utter them before
someone gets the idea "oh, it's ready now, let's do the transition" :-
I am aware that it is a live beta, but are you sure everyone understands
that? Did you know that there are sites already linking to the beta
site? It's not that I am acting as if the beta site were official, but
that is the impression that you can give people when you post the URL in
an open mailing list, or you suddenly redirect people from the official
website to the development subdomain, like we are now doing when you go
to Bugzilla.
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:
"This is a beta site still in development. If you came here looking for
the official Haiku website, please point your browser to www.haiku-os.org."
Koki
Other related posts:
