webteam:idea_percolator_options
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Next revision | Previous revision | ||
| webteam:idea_percolator_options [2011/10/29 14:29] – created jimcraner | webteam:idea_percolator_options [2022/02/10 13:34] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| **a) IdeaTorrent (Amy/ | **a) IdeaTorrent (Amy/ | ||
| + | User submits the idea, also using tag or category to identify cases where the user is willing to contribute funds, but is seeking co-sponsors or is planning to fund it, | ||
| + | but is first seeking community feedback. | ||
| + | Once submitted, percolator analyzes keywords to determine if it may be a duplicate. Presents possible duplicates to users. | ||
| + | Community maintainers and other interested individuals are alerted of the new submission. | ||
| + | Aware of similar idea or ongoing project (check Git Repository and Launchpad as well as doublecheck Percolater)? | ||
| + | Yes, adds an explanatory comment with a link to the ongoing project, possibly changing the status of the idea to cancelled. | ||
| + | Others interested in the enhancement cast a vote for the idea and add comments/ | ||
| + | Ideatorrent has 2 places where ' | ||
| + | it gets moved into the ' | ||
| + | in 'use cases' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ideas with the most votes/ | ||
| + | Idea moves forward (or not) in one of the following ways: | ||
| + | Developer with similar interest or looking for projects to get started in Evergreen adopts an idea. Changes the status to “under development.” Idea moves into | ||
| + | Launchpad as a wishlist item with more technical details about implementation. | ||
| + | / mod can confirm it is and it moves into 'In Development' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Organization with sufficient funding contracts with developer/ | ||
| + | Organization decides it is willing to contribute funds to the idea, but needs co-sponsors. Changes category or tag to “seeking co-sponsors.” | ||
| + | YES, This could be done with adding a tag | ||
| + | Idea gets no funding or development support. Sinks to the bottom of the percolator. | ||
| + | |||
| + | PROS: Designed for idea submissions along with other user comments, voting to determine idea popularity, some flexibility in adding tags/ | ||
| + | CONS: Less flexibility in design when compared to home-grown solution (ideas.galecia.com) | ||
| **b) Standalone (or RSCEL-hosted) Drupal app (Jim/ | **b) Standalone (or RSCEL-hosted) Drupal app (Jim/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | http:// | ||
| **c) Redmine/ | **c) Redmine/ | ||
| **d) Use a set of wiki pages for this (June)** | **d) Use a set of wiki pages for this (June)** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Steps based on the Idea Percolator workflow | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 2. User searches percolator to see if the idea has already been suggested or is being implemented. | ||
| + | -- If this is on the Wiki, you can use the site search for that's already in place. | ||
| + | -- Percolator summary page that includes Name / Organization, | ||
| + | -- Link from developer page to percolator summary page for potential developers looking for projects | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 3. User submits the idea, also using tag or category to identify cases where the user is willing to contribute funds, but is seeking co-sponsors or is planning to fund it, but is first seeking community feedback. | ||
| + | -- Use a custom template for idea percolater pages that would include the following information: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 4. Once sumitted, percolator analyzes keywords to determine if it may be a duplicate. | ||
| + | -- Need an individual to monitor percolator for duplicates | ||
| + | -- If a duplicate is found, merge the two ideas into one page and delete the duplicate. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 5. Community maintainers and other interested individuals are alerted to the new submission | ||
| + | -- Email EG community with link to percolator page. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 6. Others interested in the enhancement case a vote for the idea and add comments /use cases for how it might be implemented in their organization. | ||
| + | -- Comment on Wiki page | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 7. Ideas with the most votes / activity float to the top of the percolator | ||
| + | -- Votes would need to be manually tabulated | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 8. Idea moves forward (or not) | ||
| + | -- Remove the Wiki page when the idea moves to Launchpad? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pros for Wiki pages: | ||
| + | * Dokuwiki already in place, don't need to create any new except a dokuwiki template | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cons for Wiki pages: | ||
| + | * Essentially free form text, can only search for keywords and can't query like a database | ||
| + | * Requires manual intervention at many points: posting ideas, identifying duplicates, merging duplicates, tallying votes, purging implemented ideas | ||
| + | * Users are likely to comment by replying to the email posting - that doesn' | ||
| + | |||
| **e) Launchpad Blueprints (Kathy)** | **e) Launchpad Blueprints (Kathy)** | ||
| + | [[https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 2. User searches percolator - **you can do some basic keyword searching in Blueprints.** | ||
| + | Step 3. User submits the idea, also using tag or category to identify cases where the user is willing to contribute funds, but is seeking co-sponsors or is planning to fund it, but is first seeking community feedback. - **I don't see much opportunity for flexible categorization. You could post these in the " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 4. Once submitted, percolator analyzes keywords to determine if it may be a duplicate. Presents possible duplicates to users. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 5: Community maintainers are alerted of submission. - **I don't see any alert mechanism (e-mail or RSS) for new blueprint submissions.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 5. Adds an explanatory comment with a link to the ongoing project, possibly changing the status of the idea to cancelled. - **Click Superseded by and then link it to the duplicate project** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 6. Others interested in the enhancement cast a vote for the idea and add comments/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 7. Ideas with most votes/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 8. Setting statuses - **There are various statuses: implementation status, definition status, and just plain status, that can indicate where the idea is in the development process. However, I don't see any flexibility for adding statuses or categorizations that indicate funding commitment.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pros of Launchpad Blueprints: | ||
| + | *You can link to a spec URL, which may be useful for groups that have already built more detailed requirements elsewhere. | ||
| + | *You can link it to a Launchpad bug, which ultimately is where the final code will most likely be posted. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | *For those already on Launchpad, no need to create a new account. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cons of Launchpad Blueprints: | ||
| + | | ||
| + | | ||
| + | *For those who are not yet on Launchpad (the non-developer audience that would be posting ideas), a new account is required. | ||
| + | |||
| + | **f) Launchpad Bugs (Kathy)** | ||
| + | Step 2. User searches percolator - Yes, basic and advanced searching are available. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 3. User submits the idea, also using tag or category to identify cases where the user is willing to contribute funds, but is seeking co-sponsors or is planning to fund it, but is first seeking community feedback. - **Tags could be utilized to categorize ideas. A standard set of tags would need to be agreed upon by the community. Bugs that are really features requests are usually given an importance of " | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 4. Once submitted, percolator analyzes keywords to determine if it may be a duplicate. Presents possible duplicates to users. - **Launchpad first requests a summary when submitting a bug. After entering the summary, it looks for potential duplicates before the user enters more detailed information.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 5. Community maintainers are alerted of submission. - **Interested parties can subscribe to all bugs or can subscribe to bugs that use a certain tag.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 5. Adds an explanatory comment with a link to the ongoing project, possibly changing the status of the idea to cancelled. - **Others can add comments. There is also a link to mark it as a duplicate. Enter the ID for the duplicate bug to create a link between the two.** | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 6. Others interested in the enhancement cast a vote for the idea and add comments/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 7. Ideas with most votes/ | ||
| + | |||
| + | Step 8. Setting statuses - **You can change the status to "in progress." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Pros of Launchpad Bugs: | ||
| + | | ||
| + | *For those already on Launchpad, no need to create a new account. | ||
| + | | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cons of Launchpad Bugs: | ||
| + | * Many developers will see these ideas as they are submitted. This may be too much noise. Further discussions with the developer community would be required. | ||
| + | * For those who are not yet on Launchpad (the non-developer audience that would be posting ideas), a new account is required. | ||
| + | * Some work would be required on the Evergreen wiki to link to canned bug searches to make it more accessible. | ||
webteam/idea_percolator_options.1319912979.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/02/10 13:34 (external edit)