Board index » off-topic » QC voting methods and "feature creep"

QC voting methods and "feature creep"


2007-11-12 11:14:58 PM
off-topic9
So many persons have ideas about so many different aspects of
the QualityCentral voting system and so very few have a good
perspective of the big picture and the goals. I would hate to
be commissioned with the task of redesigning or even improving
the system. It could never ending feature creep. --JohnH
 
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

John Herbster wrote:
Quote
So many persons have ideas ...
It could never ending feature creep.
Which means people are interested in participating and in improving
the process. That's exactly what we need.
- Leo
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

"Leo Siefert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
Quote
>So many persons have ideas ... It could
>[lead to] never ending feature creep.
Which means people are interested in participating
and in improving the process. That's exactly what
we need.
Then I suggest that we start by refining a statement
of the goals, before we start proposing the mechanics.
--JohnH
 

{smallsort}

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

John Herbster wrote:
Quote
Then I suggest that we start by refining a statement
of the goals, before we start proposing the mechanics.
Rating: +10
--
Alex
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

John Herbster wrote:
Quote
Then I suggest that we start by refining a statement
of the goals,
Sure. Let's just get a nice big committee together to do that. Then we
can make sure that nothing ever changes, since committees only ever
decide on changing things when everyone agrees. (I work for the state
senate, so you might consider me an expert on this process.)
Nick and Chris have already stated pretty clearly what the goals are,
and they are the people in a position to do this - it's their job.
They want to see greater participation and a larger number of votes on
reports. Look at Chris' last post in the thread preceding this one for
some good justification.
Quote
before we start proposing the mechanics.
Too late for that by far. If you read back through the history of this
group you will find that we (users) have proposed changing the
mechanics many times over the years.
Now Chris has proposed a changes and asked for comments. But your
reaction seems to be suggesting that we just stop and go back five
years to a beginning of the discussion.
If we are too afraid to try something new then we all lose.
- Leo
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

"Leo Siefert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
Quote
... Nick and Chris have already stated pretty clearly
what the goals are, ...
Leo,
I missed that. Can you, please, point me (and
others) to a concise statement of the goals of
the QualityCentral voting.
Thank you, JohnH
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Markus.Humm wrote:
Quote
Hello,

as a first start I'd try to repair the web client as this even got worse
at some point a few months agao as one can neither rate nor vote with it
right now. Also changing something entered or adding an attachment seems
either impossible or broken. I think these things could be fixed without
much discussion, can they?

Greetings

Markus
I believe Lori Olson (TeamB) is rewriting the web client.
No news I can see since October 2, 2007:
From: "Lori M Olson [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Subject: Re: Right justified comments in QC web interface ever going to
befixed?
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:19:13 -0600
Message-ID: <4702ee0f$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Oops - on October 12, she says it's being written in 3rd Rail:
From: "Lori M Olson [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Subject: Re: Vote -5 to +5
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:02:29 -0600
Message-ID: <470f8c84$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
--
-Brion
There's no such thing as 'one, true way;'
- Mercedes Lackey
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Hello,
as a first start I'd try to repair the web client as this even got worse
at some point a few months agao as one can neither rate nor vote with it
right now. Also changing something entered or adding an attachment seems
either impossible or broken. I think these things could be fixed without
much discussion, can they?
Greetings
Markus
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Lori M Olson [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
That's me. I'm currently doing battle with Apache configurations on the
test deployment servers. Plan is to have something that you can rate
and/or vote with up first, followed by other fun stuff in fairly short
order.
Any chance of a blog or something detailing your fun with 3rd Rail? I'd
be curious if you'd still have picked it over JBuilder or, heck, notepad,
given the benefit of hindsight.
--
-Brion
There's no such thing as 'one, true way;'
- Mercedes Lackey
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Brion L. Webster wrote:
Quote
Markus.Humm wrote:

>Hello,
>
>as a first start I'd try to repair the web client as this even got
>worse at some point a few months agao as one can neither rate nor vote
>with it right now. Also changing something entered or adding an
>attachment seems either impossible or broken. I think these things
>could be fixed without much discussion, can they?
>
>Greetings
>
>Markus

I believe Lori Olson (TeamB) is rewriting the web client.

No news I can see since October 2, 2007:

From: "Lori M Olson [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Subject: Re: Right justified comments in QC web interface ever going to
befixed?
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 19:19:13 -0600
Message-ID: <4702ee0f$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >

Oops - on October 12, she says it's being written in 3rd Rail:
From: "Lori M Olson [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Subject: Re: Vote -5 to +5
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:02:29 -0600
Message-ID: <470f8c84$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >

That's me. I'm currently doing battle with Apache configurations on the
test deployment servers. Plan is to have something that you can rate
and/or vote with up first, followed by other fun stuff in fairly short
order.
--
Regards,
Lori Olson [TeamB]
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Brion L. Webster wrote:
Quote
Lori M Olson [TeamB] wrote:

>That's me. I'm currently doing battle with Apache configurations on
>the test deployment servers. Plan is to have something that you can
>rate and/or vote with up first, followed by other fun stuff in fairly
>short order.

Any chance of a blog or something detailing your fun with 3rd Rail? I'd
be curious if you'd still have picked it over JBuilder or, heck,
notepad, given the benefit of hindsight.

Definitely, once I have something up and running out in public.
But...
One would not use Jbuilder for this, since it was a Rails project. And,
if what you are asking is... would I rather have done it in Java?
Absolutely not.
If you are talking about choice of IDE... JBuilder doesn't support
Rails. The options include (but are not limited to) Netbeans,
RadRails/Aptana, IntelliJ IDEA, TextMate (I am a Mac user), and Komodo.
I choose 3rdRail over all of those at present. QC is not my only Rails
project. I've been working with Ruby on Rails for over 2 years (and
bugging CodeGear about producing a Rails IDE for most of that time). I
have personal experience with RadRails and TextMate and Emacs and (yech)
Dreamweaver for Rails development. Definitely prefer 3rdRail over all
those other choices.
--
Regards,
Lori Olson [TeamB]
------------
Save yourself, and everyone else, some time and search the
newsgroups and the FAQ-O-Matic before posting your next
question.
Google Advanced Newsgroup Search
www.google.ca/advanced_group_search
Other Newsgroup Searches:
www.borland.com/newsgroups/ngsearch.html
Joi Ellis's FAQ-O-Matic:
www.visi.com/~gyles19/fom-serve/cache/1.html
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

John Herbster wrote:
Quote
I missed that. Can you, please, point me (and
others) to a concise statement of the goals of
the QualityCentral voting.
Well it's their job to do that internally for CodeGear, not
necessarily to publish it, so I was not referring to a manifesto
posted on the door of the cathedral but to a number of separate
comments in their postings.
One goal from Chris initial post on changing the voting process:
Quote
This encourages and rewards folks for taking the challenging
task of being a sysop, something we need.
And from Chris most recent post to the same thread:
Quote
making Top Ten lists, they don't look very compelling
when only a handful of votes have been made, so the team
doesn't feel it's a common problem. Take a random sample of
bugs in QC, and you'll see what I mean - vast majority have
10 or less votes, and TONS of issues have *0* votes, which
to the developer looking at the QC report, makes it seem to
them that only one person in the entire world is
running into that problem.
But most concisely and frequently from Nick (this from his first post
in the above thread:
Quote
We simply aren't getting enough input. The bell curve is really flat
-- no bug reports are getting enough votes, so we don't get a feel for
what is really bugging (sorry) people.
And again from Chris in the same thread, a clear statement of why one
alternative proposal does not meet the requirements (posted 11/7):
Quote
we want to establish a bell curve, and the 1 person votes that weigh
'1000' make that extremely difficult to do. It also encourages people
to only vote once- DEFINITELY don't want that. We need to see the
spread where more people are affected by the same issues to help
prioritize.
And fro Nick in a post to the same thread on 11/7:
Quote
Simple, easy to explain, easy to do.
From Chris on 11/6 in the same thread:
Quote
I think the more we move away from the flat/lack of curve of the
5 last years, which the team isn't finding very useful, the much
better overall.
If we suddenly see dozens of users casting 5 (or 10, whatever)
votes for dozens of issues they find important - we win.
So do you see a theme here yet? They simply need to get usable
statistics from the voting and the current system does not do that.
There has clearly been discussion about this and Chris and Nick are on
the same page - they need more users supplying more information in the
voting process. They also need more sysops to help work through the
backlog of unopened reports. Those are goals and they make sense. I
see no reason to question them now, especially among users.
They asked for comments on the mechanics that they proposed to solve
the problem - that's why the discussion has been about mechanics. And
they have clearly indicated the goals they wish to achieve.
- Leo
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Lori M Olson [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
One would not use Jbuilder for this, since it was a Rails project. And,
if what you are asking is... would I rather have done it in Java?
Absolutely not.
I would have thought "JBuilder doesn't support Ruby" to be more important,
but I confess I don't know - is there a Java On Rails option?
Quote
If you are talking about choice of IDE... JBuilder doesn't support Rails.
The options include (but are not limited to) Netbeans, RadRails/Aptana,
IntelliJ IDEA, TextMate (I am a Mac user), and Komodo.

I choose 3rdRail over all of those at present. QC is not my only Rails
project. I've been working with Ruby on Rails for over 2 years (and
bugging CodeGear about producing a Rails IDE for most of that time). I
have personal experience with RadRails and TextMate and Emacs and (yech)
Dreamweaver for Rails development. Definitely prefer 3rdRail over all
those other choices.
I was curious to know if you would have picked a non RoR way to accomplish
the QC Web Client, partly because I have an impression that you were a
JBuilder nomination to TeamB. That could be entirely incorrect to begin
with. I'm also a little fuzzy as to what types of solution RoR is
appropriate for. Of course, to a RoR convert, all problems are merely
flat spots waiting for railroad tracks to be laid down. <g>
The other thing I'd be curious to know is what pain points or interesting
things you've found, using 3rd Rail. I quite like David Clegg's blog on
interesting things he's found with ECO, or Blackfish SQL, as he's
implementing various projects. Not necessarily casting aspersions, just
things that didn't work as expected, and how he worked around them or
changed his method of thinking. I think those kind of insights would be
valuable for other CodeGear customers. Then again, 3rd Rail could be the
first perfect IDE!
--
-Brion
There's no such thing as 'one, true way;'
- Mercedes Lackey
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Brion L. Webster wrote :
Quote
The other thing I'd be curious to know is what pain points or interesting
things you've found, using 3rd Rail. I quite like David Clegg's blog on
interesting things he's found with ECO, or Blackfish SQL, as he's
implementing various projects. Not necessarily casting aspersions, just
things that didn't work as expected, and how he worked around them or changed
his method of thinking. I think those kind of insights would be valuable for
other CodeGear customers. Then again, 3rd Rail could be the first perfect
IDE!
Then you'd expect aha! moments as the IDE makes
things easier than you'd expected.
That and I'd expect to see ways that using the IDE
changed your thinking or approach to a problem.
Brad.
 

Re:QC voting methods and "feature creep"

Brion L. Webster used his keyboard to write :
Quote
Lori M Olson [TeamB] wrote:

>One would not use Jbuilder for this, since it was a Rails project. And, if
>what you are asking is... would I rather have done it in Java? Absolutely
>not.

I would have thought "JBuilder doesn't support Ruby" to be more important,
but I confess I don't know - is there a Java On Rails option?

Around my house you'd be flagged for arguing
about words and the kids would have you doing
10 pushups. 8:-)
Brad.