20,741
edits
User talk:Bigstones/Essay:A plan for a reorganization of the wiki: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
User talk:Bigstones/Essay:A plan for a reorganization of the wiki (view source)
Revision as of 07:42, 9 May 2014
, 9 May 2014→Development classification: provide a more specific example
m (→2nd row of questions: renaming section & response) |
m (→Development classification: provide a more specific example) |
||
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
:::Otherwise, we'll just end up with tons of unsupported ideas & plans. As I said, it makes a huge difference for us as a project and community of contributors, being self-organized, just '''who''' exactly supports certain ideas - this applies certainly to anything that is not just a trivial weekend hack, but requires many weekends of spare time coding. | :::Otherwise, we'll just end up with tons of unsupported ideas & plans. As I said, it makes a huge difference for us as a project and community of contributors, being self-organized, just '''who''' exactly supports certain ideas - this applies certainly to anything that is not just a trivial weekend hack, but requires many weekends of spare time coding. | ||
::: For example: This is kinda how Gijs' [[NavDisplay]] project took shape (no core development either): Zakalawe was supportive of it (it aligning well with his own plans to get rid of certain C++ code and unify/modernize our OpenGL code via Canvas), so that others (Hyde, Philosopher, I) knew that this would be a worthwhile project because we had "community/contributor" support (not just through ideas, but helping hands). And others like TheTom also knew that there were a handful of contributors involved, so our RoR is much greater because contributions are magnified by others working on similar problems. Yet, we had to identify overlapping areas and decide what we wanted to work on - splitting up the whole thing into components, so that the [[MapStructure]] folks will normally not have to touch the [[NavDisplay]] stuff (and vice versa). Likewise, there are similar projects, like a Nasal/Canvas animation framework or a PFD framework that simply have certain community support, i.e. in the form of people willing to provide help/support. | |||
:::So we are using "contributor momentum" to evaluate popularity of ideas and to determine if we're interested in teaming up with others who have similar/overlapping ideas. Having just a huge collection of "random & unsupported" feature requests or ideas is begging for trouble, and is the main reason why the issue tracker is not intended for feature requests, i.e. to remain useful for people who are actually able to do certain work. Which is where the wiki shines: Ideas/plans gathered here by contributors (instead of end-users) obviously matter more, even if they should never be touched in months[http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1563&p=11299&hilit=#p11299], they're representing long-term direction. And obviously it also matter just how active a contributor is at any given time, ideas and plans have more weight if someone is still involved and very active, vs. others who are no longer involved or very inactive. We have some fairly active fgdata developers whose contributions are not quite in line with ideas laid out by core developers who are meanwhile pretty much inactive, obviously activity beats inactivity. --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 07:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | :::So we are using "contributor momentum" to evaluate popularity of ideas and to determine if we're interested in teaming up with others who have similar/overlapping ideas. Having just a huge collection of "random & unsupported" feature requests or ideas is begging for trouble, and is the main reason why the issue tracker is not intended for feature requests, i.e. to remain useful for people who are actually able to do certain work. Which is where the wiki shines: Ideas/plans gathered here by contributors (instead of end-users) obviously matter more, even if they should never be touched in months[http://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1563&p=11299&hilit=#p11299], they're representing long-term direction. And obviously it also matter just how active a contributor is at any given time, ideas and plans have more weight if someone is still involved and very active, vs. others who are no longer involved or very inactive. We have some fairly active fgdata developers whose contributions are not quite in line with ideas laid out by core developers who are meanwhile pretty much inactive, obviously activity beats inactivity. --[[User:Hooray|Hooray]] ([[User talk:Hooray|talk]]) 07:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC) | ||