On 13 May 2013 11:12, Chris Wilson <ch...@aptivate.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > This isn't political equivocating. Its a genuine call to the community to >> tell us how we can make things better. >> > > If I may make a suggestion to be considered by the community: > > The status WONTFIX sounds awfully rude to me. It's like saying "That's a > pony and you can't have one, ever." It implies a terminal finality which > actually isn't meant in some cases, because it is possible (as we've seen) > and even sometimes recommended by a core developer, for a sufficiently > determined person to push for change on the mailing list and make it happen. >
You can blame this on my lack of social skills, but I really don't see how it's rude. It's informative: in current state the issue won't be fixed. Yes, it is possible to change the status to Accepted, but only if new facts arise (i.e. change of ecosystem, change in design). Note that the current proposal for refresh() differs significantly from the original one and that's the reason for accepting, not a core dev's change of heart. You can't have *that* pony, but it doesn't mean you can have *any* ponies. > > Perhaps there's a case for a status like "DISCUSSION" or "NEEDINFO" when a > feature might be accepted if sufficient evidence for it comes to light, but > that evidence isn't there yet. > I fear it will end the same way as "Design Decision Needed" aka. Limbo. It's a really horrifying state where the issue is nor dead nor alive and lingers for all eternity causing even greater frustration for both the reporter and developers. > I think there is value in people "voting" for a feature on the ticket if > they don't feel up to arguing the case on the mailing list (which is a > trial by fire, and not for the faint hearted). Whoever is brave enough to > take up the issue on the mailing list can point to the number of votes on > the ticket as evidence for a desire for the feature, and hence its > usefulness. And voting on the ticket instead of here saves a lot of "me > too" noise on the mailing list. > In my experience, people will vote for issue without giving much thought about it because clicking on a webpage doesn't cost anything, while presenting reasonable arguments on a mailing list requires at least a little research. Also, you would need negative votes and I suspect that would probably cause even more tension then "WONTFIX" status. Although there is one major flaw in the voting system/tracker I sometimes see: -1 votes (setting WONTFIX is effectively a veto just like -1) without giving conditions for improvement to at least -0. Having a clear path of action (even a one that involves a lot of work) to convince the person vetoing your proposal is always better then just "No, I don't think it's useful". -- Łukasz Rekucki -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
