User Tools

Site Tools


webteam:idea_percolator_options

Idea Percolator Implementation Options

At the 10/27 Web Team meeting, we discussed implementation options for an Evergreen community idea percolator application. The following list of potential applications is listed below, along with the Web Team member(s) responsible for investigating and reporting back to the Team about each application's suitability for implementing Idea Percolator Workflow (Draft).

a) IdeaTorrent (Amy/Kate) 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.  YES
  Once submitted, percolator analyzes keywords to determine if it may be a duplicate. Presents possible duplicates to users.  YES, IDEATORRENT CHECKS FOR DUPLICATES
  Community maintainers and other interested individuals are alerted of the new submission.  YES
      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/use cases for how it might be implemented in their organization.  YES
  Ideatorrent has 2 places where 'voting' can happen, one is in the idea sandbox, this is where admins look at ideas suggest by people, if enough admins say yes this is a good idea
  it gets moved into the 'popular' ideas section.  In the popular ideas section users can vote on 'solutions' or as it is worded in the current version you are poking around 
  in 'use cases'
  Ideas with the most votes/activity float to the top of the percolator.  YES, it is possible to view ideas in a most votes to least votes view.
  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.  YES, When a dev starts working on an idea, they can flag it "in dev" then an admin
   / mod can confirm it is and it moves into 'In Development'  tab.  the getting things into launchpad would need to be worked in or done manually.
      Organization with sufficient funding contracts with developer/vendor to implement. Status is changed to under development.  YES, same flagging process as above
      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.  YES, has the ability to sort via popularity
      PROS:  Designed for idea submissions along with other user comments, voting to determine idea popularity, some flexibility in adding tags/categories
      CONS:  Less flexibility in design when compared to home-grown solution (ideas.galecia.com)    

b) Standalone (or RSCEL-hosted) Drupal app (Jim/Lori)

http://ideas.galecia.com/

c) Redmine/RT/other open source request app (Jim/Lori)

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, descriptive title, developer and links to page with full information. – 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: Name / Organization, Descriptive Title, Date Proposed, Description, Keywords/Tags, Use Cases, Evergreen components impacted, Developer, Development Status, Funding Status: (i.e. funded, looking for co-sponsors, etc.), related links (examples, demos, specs, etc.)

Step 4. Once sumitted, percolator analyzes keywords to determine if it may be a duplicate. Presents possible duplicates to users. – 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't get back on to the wiki page unless someone adds it

e) Launchpad Blueprints (Kathy) My sample blueprint in Launchpad sandbox

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 "status whiteboard."

Step 4. Once submitted, percolator analyzes keywords to determine if it may be a duplicate. Presents possible duplicates to users. - Nope

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/use cases - Others can comment on the status whiteboard, but there is no mechanism for voting.

Step 7. Ideas with most votes/activity float to top of percolator - Nope!

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.
  • Tightly integrated in the developer community.
  • For those already on Launchpad, no need to create a new account.

Cons of Launchpad Blueprints:

  • Missing a lot of our requirements.
  • Seems to be best for building the actual specs.
  • 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 "wishlist." This action can not be done by the submitter, but must be done by someone on one of the developer teams. An "ideas" tag may be a way to distingish which bugs should be given this wishlist status.

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/use cases - There is "Does this bug affect you?" that can be linked to show support for a bug.

Step 7. Ideas with most votes/activity float to top of percolator - Launchpad displays a heat rating that is derived from an algorithm based on the number of people who the bug affects, the number of people who subscribe to it, whether it is a security issue, etc. However, if you view bugs by heat, the ideas will be mixed in with other bugs. Using the advanced search, you could search for bugs with a tag of ideas and sort it by heat to see which ideas get the most heat. It would be useful to have a link from the Evergreen web site directly to this search to make it easier for people.

Step 8. Setting statuses - You can change the status to "in progress." Tags would need to be used for ideas seeking co-sponsors.

Pros of Launchpad Bugs:

  • Tightly integrated in the developer community. Many developers will see these ideas as they are submitted.
  • For those already on Launchpad, no need to create a new account.
  • Meets most of our requirements.

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.txt · Last modified: 2011/11/10 15:27 by terlaga

© 2008-2017 GPLS and others. Evergreen is open source software, freely licensed under GNU GPLv2 or later.
The Evergreen Project is a member of Software Freedom Conservancy.