[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [cti] Feature voting and tracking system
So I have to admit that I still don’t really understand the whole voting thing. What are we using the votes for, prioritization? Or will issues that get a lot of “downvotes” not get addressed?
I think I said this on the call yesterday, but my preferred approach would be for someone (the co-chairs) to lay out a rough roadmap of the issues that we need to address. They can take into account list preferences, dependencies between issues,
etc. In particular, they could identify some fundamental issues to talk through first before hitting the specifics. Then they send that roadmap to the list and if anyone wants to add to it or disagrees with it we talk about it.
I worry that if we just rely on upvotes we’re going to tackle things randomly rather than strategically and we’ll end up spinning our wheels. For example, if you look at our previous conversations on relationships we ended up with short diversions
to versioning, IDs, markings, and other topics that we probably should tackle separately, first, so that they don’t keep coming up in other discussions.
I do like the idea of threaded conversations. The mailing list is difficult if you miss even one day of a quick discussion. Though it seems like the mailing list + Github is working *OK* (not great, but OK) and I wouldn’t want to spend months
figuring out how to switch to Stack Exchange when we could be actually working on STIX issues during that time.
To sum up: less talk about how to do things, more actually doing things.
John
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]