General Feasibility Guidelines for Gutsy Proposals

[23meg]

As everyone participating in this forum should know, we're gathering forum members' ideas for the next version of Ubuntu, whose layout of features will be discussed at the next Ubuntu Development Summit (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UDS-Sevilla) in Sevilla, which starts on May 6th 2007. Since the feature roadmap for the next release is practically set in stone after the UDS, that gives us 12 days in which to make those ideas that are feasible into blueprints that the developers can act upon, and then hopefully get them discussed there (if they need discussion).

With the earlier development forums, people usually submitted their ideas too late in the development period to be considered, let alone implemented, and the discussions lacked structure and specifics, which resulted in pretty much nobody who can act on them paying attention to them. The Forum Ambassadors (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=235) team is trying to amend this, and will be very busy over the next two weeks helping you write specs, submit bugs, plan and discuss features, and at least one of the team leaders will be in UDS-Sevilla in person, and can represent the specs coming from the community that need discussion.

One problem we have doing this, and something that some developers visiting the forum frown upon, is that a lot of the idea threads posted are missing some basic understanding of what's feasible and what isn't, and of how Ubuntu development works in general. We also have lots of redundant threads that are proposing what's already proposed in others, or what's already in place. This results in a low signal-to-noise ratio, and makes the whole procedure less efficient for all of us. Below, you'll find some basic guidelines, "do"s and "don't"s that will help you perform a reality check on your proposals for Gutsy, and hopefully make the discourse a more fruitful one.


* Learn and respect the basic traits and principles of Ubuntu, and don't ask them to change just because you'd prefer them to. They're very unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, so let's be practical and leave them out of these discussions. Ubuntu

* is a single CD distribution that ships a single set of sensible defaults, which the user can easily modify after installation

* follows a time based release model (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TimeBasedReleases) and puts out a release every six months

* will not ship non-Free codecs and applications by default.


If you feel very strongly that any of these should change, you should perhaps make a very, very compelling case, and the place to make it isn't this forum. Other related things to keep in mind:


* Different package formats (RPM, Autopackage, Zero Install, etc.) won't make their way into Ubuntu as defaults, at least until a solution that lets them coexist peacefully with the existing scheme is available

* Existing developers won't get to work on completely different things; a desktop person will not start working on the installer

* Canonical will not throw more paid developers at any part of project, or if they do, it won't be due to a request in the forums

* Ubuntu will not implement things that should be done upstream; an Ubuntu core developer will usually not do a feature on Rhythmbox, unless they are a Rhythmbox developer as well.


* Learn the criteria for shipping a piece of software as a part of the default Ubuntu installation. If something is to be shipped as default, it has to be in the main component of Ubuntu (more about components here (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components)), so the place to look first is the Main Inclusion Requirements page (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuMainInclusionRequirements) in the wiki. Here are the basic things you should consider before making a suggestion to include something as default:

* Is it Free software? Ubuntu can only ship non-Free drivers and firmware in the restricted component if they're critical for its operation on a large number of systems, and that's it; no proprietary applications or codecs.

* Is it already in Universe, or in Debian? If not, perhaps you should do what's required (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=414355) to get it included there first.

* Is it of interest to a considerable number of Ubuntu users? Just because you think a program is awesome and use it all the time doesn't mean Ubuntu should ship it as default.

* Is it actively developed? For any software to be in main, Ubuntu has to be able to provide security fixes for the support lifecycle of the release, and unless these fixes come from upstream, it's very hard for the Ubuntu core developers to maintain the software.

* Is it free of major and/or long-standing bugs, and does it have a good security track record? If it's in its early stages of development and hasn't been widely tested, it stands less of a chance.

* Will it fit on the CD? Ubuntu ships on a single CD, and the CD image only has a few megabytes of space left. There are plans for better compression which will provide some extra space, and some things do get removed along the way; but those notwithstanding, what are we willing to compromise for it?

* Does it depend on libraries that aren't already in main? If so, how feasible is it to include those? Will they fit on the CD?

* Ubuntu is a general purpose operating system. It does not aim to cater for specialized use cases with its default choice of software; instead, it concentrates on providing the most sensible and stable base system which readily satisfies the needs of a large portion of its user base out of the box, and which the rest of its users can easily modify according to their needs. Generally, if you're looking to perform specialized tasks with it, you should do the customization yourself, rather than asking Ubuntu to change to suit you.

Remember that you represent only a single use case, and do not extrapolate based just on your own preferences and experiences. In the very spirit of ubuntu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28ideology%29), remember that you're not the only person using Ubuntu, and that what you're proposing can encumber things for others. And just because you prefer something in a particular way doesn't mean that way should be the default, especially if it's already easy to have (e.g. the package is already in Universe and is an apt-get away); and if it isn't easy to have, it probably should be; why not consider making it easy to have as an option, rather than advocating it as a default?

* To a large extent, the software that makes up Ubuntu isn't developed by the Ubuntu developers. Like other examples of distributed development, Ubuntu is openly developed; this means most of the software that makes it up isn't developed "in-house", but comes from a highly decentralized workforce of Free software developers, and mostly is only put together and maintained by the Ubuntu developers.

This basically means that the Ubuntu developers aren't responsible for and don't have control over the majority of possible upstream feature enhancements. Given that Ubuntu must be released every six months, people who work on Ubuntu have their hands full maintaining the existing system and integrating new features that are top priority, so there's little chance that they'll go fixing upstream bugs, or implementing features. This is especially true with the MOTU, due to the amount of work to be done (and even more so this time around, I've been told), so if you want a feature enhancement to a piece of software that's in Universe, you're best off asking upstream, or getting/paying someone to implement it (yes, bounties do work).

* Observe the priorities set for the next release, and the general "Ubuntu way" of doing things. If your proposal is in line with them, it will have a higher chance of seeing favour.

The rough set of priorities for Gutsy should start to be mentioned by the project drivers these days, towards UDS. By "the Ubuntu way", I mean the way Ubuntu has gone about integrating things into the default installation, and the general manners of development, especially with Ubuntu-developed software that ships as default.

* Before suggesting something, do a search or two to see if it's already been suggested. There's a good chance that someone else thought of what you're thinking of before, and they may even already have implemented it. Or it may already have been suggested in the forum, or there may be existing specs and/or bug reports that cover it. So start by checking if the feature exists in the latest release (some people who don't use Feisty yet are proposing things that already exist in it), do a forum search (http://ubuntuforums.org/search.php) (in the Gutsy forum), a search for specs in Launchpad (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu), and a search for bugs in Launchpad (https://bugs.launchpad.net/), as well as a general web search before you suggest something.

The merit of the web search is well exemplified by this proposal (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=414289), where the original poster is suggesting a form of BitTorrent-like package management; but had they done a web search on the two obvious keywords "apt" and "torrent", they would have found out that something called apt-torrent (http://sianka.free.fr/) already exists and has accomplished just about everything they proposed, and wouldn't have had to elaborate on what has to be done to implement it.

* Specs aren't just ways of asking Ubuntu developers do things. In the most general sense, they're a way of getting organized around concrete goals in the community. You can write a spec on anything related to Ubuntu and other Free software in Launchpad, and anyone can realize a spec, including you. Do not think of specs as a way of saying "I want this feature! Give it to me in the next release!", but rather as a way of saying "This feature is lacking, and here's how we can go about implementing it together".

Speaking of developers, it's a good idea to learn exactly what the term "Ubuntu developers (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers)" refers to: again, in the most general sense, anyone who works on Ubuntu is an Ubuntu developer. Working on Ubuntu isn't reserved to a closed group of "high-ups" who are paid to do it. Sure, only the core developers (https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-core-dev) can work on main, and only the MOTU (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU) can upload directly to Universe, but there's absolutely nothing stopping anyone who is willing and capable to contribute from joining either of them, and you can implement a spec without being in any of these teams, as a contributing prospective developer. There are also submission and review systems which let you get your packages into Ubuntu, such as REVU (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Packages/REVU).

Another important thing to note is that due to the nature of time based releases (http://wiki.ubuntu.com/TimeBasedReleases) and various considerations of feasibility, not everything that's planned is doable in every release. The core developers and MOTU are finite in number, and if developers can't get to work on your spec, then it's either not essential for the next release, or simply none are interested in and/or able to work on it. Resources are limited, and unpaid developers will mostly work on their own priorities, so there's not much you can do about this other than encourage someone else to work on the spec (keyword: bounty), or work on it yourself (yes, you can start somewhere). Which brings us to...

* Do it yourself whenever possible. You have the chance and power to make a difference. Don't let not knowing to code stop you from working on enhancements and bug fixes: you can still help with bugs (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/HelpingWithBugs), plan features, place bounties, write documentation, contact upstream and work with them, or contribute in various other ways. It's horribly inefficient and non-constructive to feel something has to be done, know roughly what can be done that will perhaps work, but not actually get started in doing anything. If you're unsure how you can contribute, start here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=411868), and if you're stuck as to what steps you should take towards accomplishing any goal, ask around, in this forum, to the Forum Ambassadors (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=235) team, or to Ubuntu's community manager, Jono Bacon (http://jonobacon.org).

Ubuntu is a community driven distribution, and exactly how community driven any release will be depends on the community itself.

We have less than two weeks left till UDS, so it may be a good idea to cut down on the discussion a bit and get to work on writing specs (and filing bug reports, as always). If you need help with either, the Forum Ambassadors team (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=235) will be more than happy to help.

We do have some truly great and feasible feature ideas and nice bug catches here, and the FA team is eager to make it known that there's a lot of good in the forums. Now, let's get busy!

[salsafyren]

Hello,

Great guidelines.

Reading through the various proposals, I had the feeling that all of them were a waste of time.

I think it is better for people to go to the upstream projects or start their own projects.

There are two many proposals like the administrator mode thing smelling of "let's do it as Windows does it" creating havoc for people who do not know what they are doing.

Also, I suggest people who come up with "usability solutions" to have some hard facts for their proposal. Saying "this is the way I like it" is not enough. Do some testing, share the results and let the Ubuntu devs figure out what to do.

[reclusivemonkey]

Excellent post 23meg! This should be made sticky immediately. It was high time someone called this.

[koenn]

yep, sticky, fast.

[aysiu]

There are two many proposals like the administrator mode thing smelling of "let's do it as Windows does it" creating havoc for people who do not know what they are doing. Quite the contrary, all of the administrator mode proposals are to discourage bad practices, where new users feel so limited they begin to feel a "need" to log in as root or follow other uneducated users' advice to sudo nautilus instead of gksudo nautilus.

And, considering there is no Windows equivalent of gksudo nautilus, I don't see how Windows figures in the picture at all. In order to Run as.. Explorer, you have to hack the registry.

By the way, 23meg, it may be a good idea to just close threads that are not feasible--for example inclusion of non-free software on the CD or revamping the entire filesystem hierarchy.

[salsafyren]

Regarding gksudo Nautilus, we need to ask why there is need to do that.

If it is to edit config files because there is no GUI for that, I would refuse to implement it. Implement the GUI and solve the right problem.

That's why these things should not be implemented directly in Ubuntu but should be moved to Gnome since that will start a discussion and IMHO Ubuntu does not have time for that.

[| MM |]

fact of the matter is you do have to edit files now and then, xorg.conf for example... so may as well make it as painless as possible and as safe as possible.

[salsafyren]

fact of the matter is you do have to edit files now and then, xorg.conf for example... so may as well make it as painless as possible and as safe as possible.

If you proposed this to Gnome, it would be rejected.

The real problem is that you have to edit a config file. That need to be fixed.

[aysiu]

If you proposed this to Gnome, it would be rejected.

The real problem is that you have to edit a config file. That need to be fixed.
I agree with you in one sense, but until the GUI frontends appear for every config file, people will still use the file manager, and it is not a hack of the system to put in a gksudo nautilus--it can be easily removed later.

Also, not all the proposals were for a launcher or an "edit as root." My proposal, for example, was to have a more useful error message (that possibly leads to an authentication/confirmation dialogue) than "You don't have permission to do that" if the user is in the admin group (because a user in the admin group does have permission to do that, just not without authentication).

On a separate note, more to do with feasibility, right now, we have 19 pages of [IDEA] threads. Some of them are feasible. Some are not feasible. Some are feasible but no one likes them. Some are unfeasible even though a lot of people like them. Some are feasible, have a lot of support, but they've just died from too much agreement (not enough controversy).

What's going to happen to all these ideas? Some of the older ones (way back on page 19) were actually worthwhile. Will those get lost in the shuffle? Is anyone actually turning these into blueprints? I hardly think it's fair to ask the forum ambassadors to do all that work (the creation of literally hundreds of blueprints).

But the forum ambassadors will be bringing some of these ideas to Sevilla? Which ones are they considering right now? Should we, as a community, focus more on fleshing those ideas out than just throwing out more and more ideas?

[salsafyren]

I think the developers need to figure out which of the proposals are feasible. Ask the users to create blue prints and bring them to UDS.

[aysiu]

I think the developers need to figure out which of the proposals are feasible. Ask the users to create blue prints and bring them to UDS.
The users aren't going to UDS.

Have you seen the number of Blueprints there are?
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/

It's harder to wade through than the [IDEAS] threads here.

[Iamalex]

everyone just suck it up and use nano to edit your config file. it's hardly different from using gedit or gksudo nautilus and then navigating to the file. Even better yet, stop being babies and use VI or emacs to edit your files!

[tpg]

Maybe somebody could create a wiki page of the most popular features, but with a bare-bones description of each? I think this would work as a quick reference material, and could include links to blueprints on launchpad as they were made.

[salsafyren]

The users aren't going to UDS.

Have you seen the number of Blueprints there are?
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/

It's harder to wade through than the [IDEAS] threads here.

I meant that the developers should go to UDS.

If you think there are too many blueprints, why are we having these ideas here?

Someone should find similar blueprints and merge them.

Maybe the focus for Gutsy should be the places where we can create the most value for users.

Maybe we should start a usability project in cooperation with openusabiity?

[aysiu]

If you think there are too many blueprints, why are we having these ideas here? That was my question, actually. We have 19 pages of threads. That's hard enough to wade through. New threads are added daily. And there even [i]more actual Blueprints on Launchpad than [IDEA] threads here.

How will the developers sort through them all?

And what part of the logistics process are the forum ambassadors? Do they help filter out the lame-o ideas?

[23meg]

But the forum ambassadors will be bringing some of these ideas to Sevilla?

Two of the forum ambassadors will be in Sevilla in person, but it's impossible to get enough discussion time allocated to each and every idea. We'll most likely book one or two BoFs in which the brightest specs will see a fast overview. We'll also probably put some of the smaller ideas into big composite specs.

Which ones are they considering right now?

The FA team's responsibility isn't exactly acting as an interim mechanism of elimination. We aren't an authority at all; all we were planning to do was keep an eye on the most sensible, feasible ideas that have a good chance of being realized, and help their owners do whatever has to be done to bring them to life, be it writing specs, submitting bug reports, putting bounties or communicating with developers.

Should we, as a community, focus more on fleshing those ideas out than just throwing out more and more ideas?

As you can see, that was my proposal at the end of my original post. If we're aiming to have some effect at UDS, and we should be, time is almost up. We need to get to writing specs, and making plans.

What's going to happen to all these ideas? Some of the older ones (way back on page 19) were actually worthwhile. Will those get lost in the shuffle? Is anyone actually turning these into blueprints? I hardly think it's fair to ask the forum ambassadors to do all that work (the creation of literally hundreds of blueprints).

Don't worry, they're not forgotten. We've kept track of the most workable ones by subscribing to the threads, and will give them first priority.

Have you seen the number of Blueprints there are?
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/

It's harder to wade through than the [IDEAS] threads here.

We have 19 pages of [IDEA] threads. That's hard enough to wade through. New threads are added daily. And there even more actual Blueprints on Launchpad than [IDEA] threads here.

How will the developers sort through them all?

As I tried to emphasize in my first post, it's not just the Ubuntu developers that can get to work on those blueprints; they're open to everyone from the whole FOSS community to work on. The great number of blueprints isn't a burden on developers; it doesn't represent a backlog, it doesn't put pressure on them. Except milestone priorities and those designated essential by project drivers, nobody is under any obligation to implement any certain blueprint. Ultimately, they're just tools of self-organization and planning.

A lot of blueprints are just thrown over there. They don't have drafters or assignees, they don't even have related wiki pages; they're just a vague description of what someone would like to see. They're no different than most of the idea threads. Thus they stand zero chance of being looked at.

And what part of the logistics process are the forum ambassadors? Do they help filter out the lame-o ideas?

What we've done so far is:

1) Help steer the discussions in the Gutsy forum in a way that will help the ideas mature

2) Keep lists of the most feasible and realistic ideas

3) Discuss the best ways of taking the cream of the crop to UDS, and ways of working on some of the other good ones that can't or don't have to be discussed there

We have a rudimentary wiki page with a table where we're dumping the ideas we've shortlisted. I'll be working on it in the following hours to make it so that it will give us a good overview of the current situation, and over the next few days, we'll basically be nagging everyone who has put out worthwhile ideas to write specs, and helping them do so. Maybe actually writing some ourselves too; I know I will.

[aysiu]

Thanks for the clarification, 23meg.

Please keep us abreast of any developments.

[23meg]

By the way, 23meg, it may be a good idea to just close threads that are not feasible--for example inclusion of non-free software on the CD or revamping the entire filesystem hierarchy.

I'm in favor of that, but since I'm a moderator only in the Gutsy and FA forums (and new at that), and not officially part of the staff, I don't want to take much initiative; you can use better judgement and do what's needed.

[aysiu]

I'm in favor of that, but since I'm a moderator only in the Gutsy and FA forums (and new at that), and not officially part of the staff, I don't want to take much initiative; you can use better judgement and do what's needed.
Well, I closed my own thread on Gnome defaulting to one panel, because I was pretty sure it wasn't going to happen.

I don't want to be the only one closing threads, though, especially since I may not have the best sense of what's feasible or not.

If you're a moderator in the Gutsy forums, I think you should go for it.

[Hobbsee]

Good thread.

The more I read these "idea" threads, the more i'm sure they're out to either be impractical ("oh, write me a new office suite please") or just out to attack the devs, or plain wrong (a lot of what the "make kubuntu up to kubuntu" thread is now)

I think i'll stop reading now, before I lose any motivation to do anything, as everyone here just has a go about how bad all the changes are, and how much isnt getting done.

*shrug*

[reclusivemonkey]

Good thread.

The more I read these "idea" threads, the more i'm sure they're out to either be impractical ("oh, write me a new office suite please") or just out to attack the devs, or plain wrong (a lot of what the "make kubuntu up to kubuntu" thread is now)

I think i'll stop reading now, before I lose any motivation to do anything, as everyone here just has a go about how bad all the changes are, and how much isnt getting done.

*shrug*

Very nice to see a developer commenting here. I'm afraid I unsubscribed the feed for this forum from my feed reader the other day, as it had become just so much noise. Maybe there needs to be a slightly different method for this next time round? No offence to anyone, but it seems anyone who's seen a Beryl video on YouTube and installed Ubuntu has come charging in with their demands for exactly how they personally want Ubuntu to be. :(

Without being elitist, maybe some kind of time/status/bean count criteria should be effected for entry to the development forum in its early stages, although I'm not sure whether the forum software allows this?

[aysiu]

Or maybe we need more moderators just closing threads of ideas that just aren't going to happen. I would close them all myself except that people might think I'm on some personal crusade.

Any other moderators willing to step up to the plate?

Bad and/or not feasible ideas wouldn't keep getting bumped if their threads were closed with a simple explanation, "This isn't going to happen in Ubuntu because it is not feasible or isn't in line with the Ubuntu philosophy."

[beefcurry]

Without being elitist, maybe some kind of time/status/bean count criteria should be effected for entry to the development forum in its early stages, although I'm not sure whether the forum software allows this?

nah, I doubt new users will really even care about what Gutsy is so far :P. Being n00b friendly is something we should expand on, afterall we were all once new to this. Seeing loads of new users posting ideas is problely just a sign that there is still much to be improved (or just there are loads of ignorant people around :D)

[reclusivemonkey]

nah, I doubt new users will really even care about what Gutsy is so far :P. Being n00b friendly is something we should expand on, afterall we were all once new to this. Seeing loads of new users posting ideas is problely just a sign that there is still much to be improved (or just there are loads of ignorant people around :D)

Not at all. Being new doesn't mean you are right; just look at the majority of posts in this thread and you can clearly see they aren't workable at all. There are some good ideas (the one I though of which had already been suggested), which involved creating a "New User Tour" could have got a lot more attention rather than being buried under the weight of personal opinion.

Yes, Linux was new to all of us at one point, but some of us took the time to learn about how things work, rather than demand they work they way we previously did things. Linux is not Windows, nor is it a tailor made operating system, which to me is what most of these threads are asking for.

Yes, there is a lot to improve in Linux, but that doesn't necessarily mean these improvements will come from the suggestions in these threads.

Aysiu; Yes, moderation would be the way to go, but I can understand 23meg's reluctance to close threads. The moderators do a difficult job, and not being "officially" part of the Ubuntu development its likely they won't be entirely sure what threads to close. I've also seen the reaction of people who have even blatantly trollish threads closed.

Maybe more moderators on the Development forum would be an idea?

[aysiu]

Aysiu; Yes, moderation would be the way to go, but I can understand 23meg's reluctance to close threads. The moderators do a difficult job, and not being "officially" part of the Ubuntu development its likely they won't be entirely sure what threads to close. I'm a moderator and hesitate to close threads for that very reason. I have a general sense of what's feasible and what's not, but I don't really want to close a thread that could be a good idea. If I were a developer, I'd know right away ("Pht! That's never going to happen. Might as well shut down that idea now.")

[ubuntu_demon]

Nice work :)

Don't forget to include :
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelPatches

Also IMHO you should leave out the contacting Jono Bacon part as it's not very clear. Users shouldn't start contacting Jono Bacon for feedback on their ideas.

If people have problems or want help regarding proposals they can contact us, Forum Ambassadors. They can also choose to send an email to ubuntu-devel-discuss when they need more feedback on their spec.

[23meg]

If I were a developer, I'd know right away ("Pht! That's never going to happen. Might as well shut down that idea now.")

This is the inherent difficulty of dealing with a situation like this. It's a kind of two faced thing: we both want the input of users who may lack the knowledge to judge what's feasible and what's not (those who do can probably just go ahead and submit specs themselves), and at the same time, we want those people to observe some basics I outlined in the first post.

What it comes down to, if you ask me, is the more they observe them, the better. Due to the nature of the job, there's not much point in enforcing strict rules, but we may have been too slack the first time around and some basic policing may help. We could have closed at least a couple of pages worth of threads just in the way you mentioned, but since this was all about opening the floodgates and letting everything pour in, it was hard to be selective on when exactly to shut them.

An important point to remember is that the same volume of ideas, good and bad, doable and not, existed in every previous development forum as well. They were just buried without structure in various threads, mostly "Wishlist" threads nobody cared about. All that has changed is that we've brought in some structure; so far it's worked for the better if you ask me, and refining it further for the future will no doubt make things even better, even if just slightly better.

For the time being, I'll consult the experienced moderators before closing threads, or let them do the job; since I don't exactly look like a moderator, it may be out of place for me to behave as one, especially regarding the closing of threads.

There's not much point pondering too much on this, especially in a pessimistic way; let's just get as busy as we can dealing with the most realistically doable ideas, and refine the structure and procedures on the go, as required.

We can regard this as an experiment that brings a win-win situation at the end; people posting idea threads aren't losing a significant influence they had on the development process in the past, since they didn't have any to begin with. If anything, some may gain it, and some others will have got feedback and will have a chance to mature their ideas for possible inclusion in future.

[ubuntu_demon]

I'm a moderator and hesitate to close threads for that very reason. I have a general sense of what's feasible and what's not, but I don't really want to close a thread that could be a good idea. If I were a developer, I'd know right away ("Pht! That's never going to happen. Might as well shut down that idea now.")


For the time being, I'll consult the experienced moderators before closing threads, or let them do the job; since I don't exactly look like a moderator, it may be out of place for me to behave as one, especially regarding the closing of threads.


IMHO we should be careful with closing threads it's better to explain why a certain idea is not feasible. If the explanation is good enough the thread will stop eventually.

[23meg]

Closing without an explanation is out of the question, of course, and so far I've preferred just an explanation. It would be nice if people just stopped responding to threads that have been designated as completely unfeasible and impossible to happen. That would be the best of both worlds: the thread dies without any enforcement.

[Hobbsee]

+1 on closing threads that clearly wont happen. If you need to ask if there's something that may or may not be feasible, that can be a job of the FA's, to ask the devs. or the mods. whichever.

I've found that such threads dont appear to shut themselves down - just look at the "make me a better openoffice" one.

[aysiu]

IMHO we should be careful with closing threads it's better to explain why a certain idea is not feasible. If the explanation is good enough the thread will stop eventually.
This sounds good in theory, but look how long the Filesystem Hierarchy thread went on for.

Even if people hear an idea is unfeasible, they'll still keep going with it. A closure is the only sure way to know people will stop talking about it.

It's also disingenuous to allow discussion about a proposal to continue if the proposal has already been rejected.

[ShirishAg75]

As one of the users I do see your coin of things but there is other sides to it as well.
Saying that x or y is not doable, may not be doable at this point in time or maybe doable in lets say 5-10% or more of the actual idea. Just as an e.g. my pet peeve/idea
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=412936
Now I'm sure that this is doable but no idea if its doable for gusty or gusty+1 or even gusty+2 now there have been suggestions by 23meg to break it down to some bug-reports but I find myself stumped as to how I break it down (need guidance here) & I'm sure similar is the case with lot of people who have the big idea & its very clear in their heads but breaking it down, or making an illustration or a picture to show it (communication) is not to their advantage. For e.g. I do not what apport itself is built upon & only the developer/s would know how it functions internally.
Another thing is sometimes stuff is so mis-directed. AFAIK we take things from GNU. GNOME & Debian and package it well with some specific applications developed in-house. So if there is an idea which is right but which belongs upstream it needs to be directed there & dealt there. New users would need direction & of course some communities are not as welcoming to change as others ;)

In short help us find ways in which we can help each other out. Is there possibility to have an exclusive channel on freenode where the forum ambassadors & users who have ideas can chat, argue, make their case & eventually either fold or become part of the team. I'm sure there is going to be quite a bit signal-to-noise ratio but things do settle down eventually & it doesn't hurt to read new ideas. I came to know about the development of ext4 which I had no idea about from one of those threads so it does have merit.
That's my 0.2 cents for all its worth.

[23meg]

I find myself stumped as to how I break it down (need guidance here)

Sorry, I've neglected your spec so far; one of us will definitely look at it and help you refine it. I'm not familiar with Apport, but we can get guidance from the developers.

Another thing is sometimes stuff is so mis-directed. AFAIK we take things from GNU. GNOME & Debian and package it well with some specific applications developed in-house. So if there is an idea which is right but which belongs upstream it needs to be directed there & dealt there. New users would need direction & of course some communities are not as welcoming to change as others

In all threads I've seen that suggest sensible things which have to be done by upstream, I've posted a link to an existing bug in the upstream bug tracker, or if one doesn't exist, told the poster to open one, or follow whatever is the appropriate way to get in touch with upstream. Others should do the same.

Is there possibility to have an exclusive channel on freenode where the forum ambassadors & users who have ideas can chat, argue, make their case & eventually either fold or become part of the team.


You're welcome to #ubuntuforums-ambassadors at any time.

[aysiu]

I'd propose closing these threads. Before I do so, I'd like to get some confirmation from others that it's the right thing to do.

Phase out Ooo (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=420270)
more printer support (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=423703)
[Idea] Eliminate Serpentine and Sound Juicer now that Rhythmbox rips and burns. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=422235)
[idea] add songbird, joost, skype. (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=418287)
Bring Kubuntu up to Ubuntu (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=414789)
[IDEA] Make USB drives removeable without ejecting (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=415757)
[IDEA] Integrate a firewall app into Ubuntu (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=422486)
[IDEA/QUESTION] less confusing filesystem hierarchy (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=411979)
[IDEA] ctrl + printscreen instead of just printscreen (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=421164)
[IDEA] Community Based Repository Management (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=420114)

What do others think?

[23meg]

I'm fine with closing all of them (actually I already closed the firewall thread). However, there are many other threads I'd close before some of these.

[aysiu]

I'm fine with closing all of them (actually I already closed the firewall thread). However, there are many other threads I'd close before some of these.
Can you post links to those (you don't have to post descriptions)?

[23meg]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=417822
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=420532
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=416746
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=423745 maybe
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=419418
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=417979
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=419796
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=413648
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=418157
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=411428

just to name a few. If I search deeper I'm sure I'll find more.

[smartboyathome]

Would you close all the topics I have started in this part of the forum (except the one titled 'Advanced Send To Command')? They are of no use now and are just sitting there.

[aysiu]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=417822
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=420532
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=416746
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=423745 maybe
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=419418
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=417979
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=419796
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=413648
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=418157
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=411428

just to name a few. If I search deeper I'm sure I'll find more.
I've closed a bunch of those (some I wasn't too sure as to why they should be closed--perhaps another moderator... or you... could do it for those).

At the end, I posted this stock message: This idea proposal thread is being closed for one or more of the following reasons:
1. The idea is already implemented
2. The idea goes against Ubuntu's development philosophy
3. The idea isn't technically feasible for Ubuntu
4. The idea is too vague and/or doesn't seem to offer a practical suggestion.
5. The idea is up to the application developer, not the Ubuntu developers

For more details, read General Feasibility Guidelines for Gutsy Proposals (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=421256)

[aysiu]

I had an idea, actually (even though I just closed a thread).

What about, instead of closing threads that are not feasible, we have another subforum called Ideas on Hold? Or, if you want to be a bit harsher, Rejected Ideas?

That way, people who like to hear themselves talk can keep blabbering on about things that'll never happen, but their idea threads won't clutter up the regular idea pool subforum.

[smartboyathome]

I think it should be called "Idea Archive" with a description that goes something like "This section contains ideas that are either not feasible or are already in the latest ubuntu OS."? That way, no one will get their feelings hurt.

[aysiu]

I think it should be called "Idea Archive" with a description that goes something like "This section contains ideas that are either not feasible or are already in the latest ubuntu OS."? That way, no one will get their feelings hurt.
That could work, too.

[koenn]

sounds like a good idea.
I suppose someone will be moving threads there, then - I doubt people will start new idea threads in a "rejected ideas" forum. Then again, you never know :)

[smartboyathome]

sounds like a good idea.
I suppose someone will be moving threads there, then - I doubt people will start new idea threads in a "rejected ideas" forum. Then again, you never know :)
This could be dealt with by setting the section to "Replies only". (though, I don't know about vBullitin, only SMF and invisionfree.

[pelago]

Thanks 23meg for the first post in this thread. What you wrote there, or a variation of it, really needs to be distibuted more widely rather than just being stickied during these couple of weeks, maybe on the wiki or even on the main website. Even though I've been using Ubuntu a couple of years and read most of the main website docs, I never really knew the development process of Ubuntu until I read your post.

[Hobbsee]

I think it should be called "Idea Archive" with a description that goes something like "This section contains ideas that are either not feasible or are already in the latest ubuntu OS."? That way, no one will get their feelings hurt.

I suspect their feelings will get hurt whenever their pet idea wont get implemented, really...

In which case what you do with their thread will be of little importance to them. ie, moving it to a rejected pile, or locking it, will do the same thing - the user will be very disappointed that their pet idea wont get done.

Still, i'm glad to see some sanity in here now.

[aysiu]

What you're saying is true, Hobbsee.

Maybe we should close the "it'll never happen" ideas and then move the "probably not any time soon" ideas to the archive?

[Hobbsee]

sounds sane to me - but it depends on how you want to organise it.

[Sonrep]

What about, instead of closing threads that are not feasible, we have another subforum called Ideas on Hold? Or, if you want to be a bit harsher, Rejected Ideas?
Since most ideas wont be implemented, what about a subforum with nominated ideas instead?

Then developers can nominate the ideas that they think is good and then there will be more discussion on these topics, which will help developers. If it later turns out to not be so good, it can be moved back to the idea section. The subforum should have all thread-links on one page in order to keep all nominated ideas alive.

[aysiu]

Sonrep, that's even better--reward rather than punish.

[smartboyathome]

That is even better than my idea!

[23meg]

Since most ideas wont be implemented, what about a subforum with nominated ideas instead?

Then developers can nominate the ideas that they think is good and then there will be more discussion on these topics, which will help developers. If it later turns out to not be so good, it can be moved back to the idea section. The subforum should have all thread-links on one page in order to keep all nominated ideas alive.

I don't think developers will want to go through all the idea threads to nominate them, and we have less than a week left until UDS, so it's not really worth doing if you ask me. Besides, as I mentioned in the first post, the Ubuntu developers aren't the ultimate authority on what will get done and what won't; there are other means of getting what you want done than describing it and waiting for an Ubuntu developer to pick up on it.

If you'd like to get an overview of the most feasible ideas that the FA team has shortlisted, I set up a wiki page (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ForumAmbassadors/GutsyCommunityIdeas) just for that purpose. It's lagging behind by a day or two, but should catch up soon. Remember that it's by no means an "official" list (see this post (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2534408&postcount=16) for details), but just another way of getting organized.

[23meg]

Thanks 23meg for the first post in this thread. What you wrote there, or a variation of it, really needs to be distibuted more widely rather than just being stickied during these couple of weeks, maybe on the wiki or even on the main website. Even though I've been using Ubuntu a couple of years and read most of the main website docs, I never really knew the development process of Ubuntu until I read your post.

Good to know you found it useful; I'll look into ways of integrating a revised version of it into the wiki. If there's a specific place you feel it should go into, let me know.

[ubuntu_demon]

A list of relevant developer mailinglists :
http://wiki.ubuntu.com/DeveloperCommunication

This post doesn't really belong in this thread. It's a nice piece of information though.

[Sonrep]

I don't think developers will want to go through all the idea threads to nominate them
Developers doesn't have to, moderators can, by having a nominate button on each [idea] thread. Once a moderator click the nominate button, it get's into the nomination sub category. And from there, developers can pick ideas that's merged into the feature list you linked to.

and we have less than a week left until UDS
If not for gutsy because of time-shortage, it can be done for the upcomming LTS release.

Besides, as I mentioned in the first post, the Ubuntu developers aren't the ultimate authority on what will get done and what won't; there are other means of getting what you want done than describing it and waiting for an Ubuntu developer to pick up on it.
Well the nomination isn't the supposed to be implemented. It's just that realistic ideas goes in there so they get more attention.

[23meg]

Developers doesn't have to, moderators can, by having a nominate button on each [idea] thread. Once a moderator click the nominate button, it get's into the nomination sub category. And from there, developers can pick ideas that's merged into the feature list you linked to.


Me and a few other forum ambassadors have followed the forum since it was launched and/or scanned the whole bunch of idea threads end to end, and you can see the results in the wiki page I linked to. It may not be perfect, but it does the job with the tools already available.

If not for gutsy because of time-shortage, it can be done for the upcomming LTS release.

This is the Gutsy forum, and we have more than enough time to decide a method for Gutsy +1.

Well the nomination isn't the supposed to be implemented. It's just that realistic ideas goes in there so they get more attention.

Again, the wiki page already serves this purpose. We shouldn't be asking the forum admins to implement a forum feature for something that we can accomplish ourselves in other ways.

[Sonrep]

Me and a few other forum ambassadors have followed the forum since it was launched and/or scanned the whole bunch of idea threads end to end, and you can see the results in the wiki page I linked to. It may not be perfect, but it does the job with the tools already available.
Sure, it does a good job already. There are links to the threads so the discussion can be bumped(but at the cost of newer non-discussed ideas). If they had their own section, they would have been more discussed while on the same time not hurting the new ideas in the general idea section.

This is the Gutsy forum, and we have more than enough time to decide a method for Gutsy +1.
ok, that's good.

Again, the wiki page already serves this purpose. We shouldn't be asking the forum admins to implement a forum feature for something that we can accomplish ourselves in other ways.
But the problem is that good and realistic ideas pops up and get forgotten the other day, while unrealistic ideas can get discussed a lot more.
A section with only nominated ideas would solve that problem, and it would be easier for you to pick ideas from that section.


Good job by the way!

[23meg]

There are links to the threads so the discussion can be bumped(but at the cost of newer non-discussed ideas).
I don't think that's a real problem, given the volume of the forum.

But the problem is that good and realistic ideas pops up and get forgotten the other day, while unrealistic ideas can get discussed a lot more.
A section with only nominated ideas would solve that problem, and it would be easier for you to pick ideas from that section.

But someone would still have to pick ideas for that section, and it's unclear who it should be. In any case it would give the wrong impression that some higher body is selecting some ideas over others, and some people would be complaining about why their threads didn't make it there.

Good job by the way!

Thanks.

[Sonrep]

I don't think that's a real problem, given the volume of the forum.
Do you mean that the problem is less because the forum is bigger? In that case, why is it so?

But someone would still have to pick ideas for that section, and it's unclear who it should be. In any case it would give the wrong impression that some higher body is selecting some ideas over others, and some people would be complaining about why their threads didn't make it there.
A higher body is also needed in order to make it to the current list you linked to. And that is also needed in order to be implemented.

[23meg]

Do you mean that the problem is less because the forum is bigger? In that case, why is it so?

The forum isn't a huge one, and there are enough people interested in as well as keeping track of the most doable ideas, and besides, just because something is getting buried and not discussed much anymore doesn't mean it's losing its chances. Actually, some of the worst and least doable ideas are among the most discussed and viewed.

A higher body is also needed in order to make it to the current list you linked to. And that is also needed in order to be implemented.

Neither is exactly true, due to reasons I stated earlier in this thread: the FA team isn't an authority, and neither are the Ubuntu developers. Anyone can write, discuss and push a spec, and anyone can implement one.

[Sonrep]

The forum isn't a huge one, and there are enough people interested in as well as keeping track of the most doable ideas, and besides, just because something is getting buried and not discussed much anymore doesn't mean it's losing its chances. Actually, some of the worst and least doable ideas are among the most discussed and viewed.
My point was that making a forum split between nominated and general ideas would make this section more specific and less messy. While those ideas who aren't discussed might not lose it's chances to become nominated, more discussion would solve out more issues.

Neither is exactly true, due to reasons I stated earlier in this thread: the FA team isn't an authority, and neither are the Ubuntu developers. Anyone can write, discuss and push a spec, and anyone can implement one.
But someone would still have to pick ideas for that section
Can't similar rules can be applied for nominating ideas then?

[23meg]

My point was that making a forum split between nominated and general ideas would make this section more specific and less messy. While those ideas who aren't discussed might not lose it's chances to become nominated, more discussion would solve out more issues.

You have a point; it can have its benefits, but I tend to think the loss outweighs them, and that we can have some/all of those benefits without having to implement new forum features (which can be quite a task for the admins).

Can't similar rules can be applied for nominating ideas then?

What kind of rules? Nominating for what?

[Sonrep]

You have a point; it can have its benefits, but I tend to think the loss outweighs them, and that we can have some/all of those benefits without having to implement new forum features (which can be quite a task for the admins).
Ok

What kind of rules? Nominating for what?
I reffer t this qoute.
Neither is exactly true, due to reasons I stated earlier in this thread: the FA team isn't an authority, and neither are the Ubuntu developers. Anyone can write, discuss and push a spec, and anyone can implement one.
The same rules to be implemented when pushing a spec can be used for nominating.. ie everyone could push for a nomination etc.

[23meg]

Sorry, I don't follow you; what I meant was that there are no rules and restrictions on writing a spec and doing what's necessary to get it implemented. It's not a democratic process; terms such as voting, nomination etc. do not really apply, and neither should they here.

Watch the FA subforum (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=235); the forum-ambassadors-discussion spec (https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/ubuntuforums-ambassadors-discussion) was discussed yesterday at UDS, and there will probably be another round of discussion, where the forum user ideas process will probably also get discussed. I may also write an informational spec on the matter, which will detail how the current process can be improved. What we've had in the past three weeks has been pretty inefficient.

[sicofante]

I'm quite amazed both by this thread and by the way things are going at the Gutsy Gibbon Idea Pool subforum.

When we were discussing the whole Forum Ambassadors thing, I had a feeling that a new elite would emerge that would finally turn all this into absurdity. You create a place for people to freely express their ideas and then you go closing thread after thread because you believe it's a bad idea or it's not feasible. I guess this sentence explains it all:

Actually, some of the worst and least doable ideas are among the most discussed and viewed.

I might be one of those "hurt feelings" whiner. I was participating in an interesting debate about unplugging pendrives without the need to unmount them, which is a very basic OS issue. Then a moderator came in and closed the thread saying it would never be implemented because "it was a feature" (?). It sounded harsh, but now I know it was simply part of the policy you guys are explaining here, my feelings are not hurt anymore. Now, I just believe it makes little to no sense to post ideas.

If you were not prepared to handle the flood of ideas or are not willing to consider those that seem to become more popular because you find them "bad and not feasible", why don't you just close the subforum altogether and stop pretending you're going to listen to the users?

[23meg]

You create a place for people to freely express their ideas and then you go closing thread after thread because you believe it's a bad idea or it's not feasible.

We haven't closed a single thread because we think it's a bad idea; that's such an absurd accusation. In many threads where we were in disagreement with the ideas at hand, we've pointed people to appropriate ways of going about accomplishing what they want regardless of our position on the proposed changes. I can post links to such cases if you're interested.

We believe we have the experience with and knowledge of Ubuntu that it takes to judge that something is entirely unfeasible, and yes, we've closed some threads on that basis. If there's absolutely no way something will get done, it's wise to stop discussing it; we've also stated this in some threads, but it didn't really work, and threads with no potential to produce any outcome kept going and going.

I guess this sentence explains it all:

Pick a sentence, take it out of context to serve for your case, and it "explains it all"? What does it state, other than my personal opinion? Yes, I'll repeat clearly: I think some of the most discussed ideas are some of the worst, as well as being the least feasible. Am I not allowed to have and state this opinion? If so, you should get equally worked out over anyone stating that any idea is a bad one; that must have happened a few hundred times in the forum.

If we had closed threads just because we thought they were bad ideas, you'd have a point. That didn't happen though.

I might be one of those "hurt feelings" whiner. I was participating in an interesting debate about unplugging pendrives without the need to unmount them, which is a very basic OS issue. Then a moderator came in and closed the thread saying it would never be implemented because "it was a feature" (?). It sounded harsh, but now I know it was simply part of the policy you guys are explaining here, my feelings are not hurt anymore. Now, I just believe it makes little to no sense to post ideas.

Depending on whether you agree with the procedure or not, it's entirely up to you to post ideas or not. As I've expressed multiple times in this very thread, we're not thoroughly satisfied with the process either, and we'll be refining it for the next release. If you have any constructive feedback on what exactly should change and how, you're welcome to state it in a civil manner, and we'll consider it.

If you were not prepared to handle the flood of ideas or are not willing to consider those that seem to become more popular because you find them "bad and not feasible", why don't you just close the subforum altogether and stop pretending you're going to listen to the users?

Again, we haven't closed a single thread just because we think it's a bad idea, or because it's popular (!); the only reason for closure so far has been the absolute unfeasibility of ideas in threads that kept going without producing any outcome.

Absolute freedom of expression does not exist, neither in these forums nor elsewhere, and freedom of expression isn't top priority in this particular forum; getting things done is. There are other places, such as Community Cafe, that are more suitable for discussions that don't particularly aim to produce concrete outcome within a given time frame.

Due to the way Ubuntu is governed, there are certain things that simply won't change just because some users think they should. We know what these are and have laid them out in the first post in this very thread for all to know; we're merely being conductive in the general way things operate, and not making decisions based on rules we ourselves are putting in place.

[sicofante]

I have no idea which other threads have been closed and what's the criteria used. Maybe you don't find it constructive, but I suggest you stop putting in the same place and sentence that bad and/or unfeasible ideas might be subject to be closed by you. When you've got the power, you must be careful with your wording.

I don't mean to start a flame against your manners as moderators/administrators/ambassadors, but the thread I was contributing to (not started by me, BTW) was closed with a pretty absurd sentence and that makes me feel arbitrary decisions are being made here. The fact that you talk so happily about "worse ideas being the most discussed and viewed" only makes me fear the worse (the context, BTW, is this whole thread and it only confirms what the sentence suggests).

What was the problem with threads being kept open again? What exactly are the issues with ideas being discussed endlessly by the users here? Why is it better to throw back to the Cafe those things you don't entirely like?

I'm not asking for freedom of speech here (although I tend not to trust people saying "absolute FOS doesn't exist"...), I'm just asking for coherence. If you want users ideas, let the users express their ideas. If you don't like them or consider them "unfeasible" just say it in the thread. No reason to stop others to suggest how to make the unfeasible feasible.

BTW: handling removable file systems without warnings IS very feasible.

[23meg]

Maybe you don't find it constructive, but I suggest you stop putting in the same place and sentence that bad and/or unfeasible ideas might be subject to be closed by you. When you've got the power, you must be careful with your wording.

I do find it constructive; English isn't my first language, and I may not have been able to emphasize the clear (to me) separation between the two appropriately. I thought it would be obvious, but apparently it wasn't, so I'll take note of that.

I don't mean to start a flame against your manners as moderators/administrators/ambassadors, but the thread I was contributing to (not started by me, BTW) was closed with a pretty absurd sentence and that makes me feel arbitrary decisions are being made here. The fact that you talk so happily about "worse ideas being the most discussed and viewed" only makes me fear the worse (the context, BTW, is this whole thread and it only confirms what the sentence suggests).

I'm not going to speak for the moderator who closed the thread, but you can rest assured that what I have said has no necessary connection with the policy of moderation. If it were possible for you to prove otherwise with even a single example, your fears would be substantiated, but I'm confident that it's not.

What was the problem with threads being kept open again? What exactly are the issues with ideas being discussed endlessly by the users here? Why is it better to throw back to the Cafe those things you don't entirely like?

Here you're twisting my words, and doing so with an accusatory tone which is really uncalled for. This has nothing to do with what we like or not. This forum had the clear goal of taking a bunch of feasible ideas to UDS, and getting others discussed and matured for possible future implementation, and as the text in the yellow header section says, the more efficiently we did this, the more we'd get done.

If people would like to discuss integrating feature X despite being informed with official feedback that it's not possible and/or not going to happen for the next release for some other reason, that discussion should be out of the scope of the Idea Pool forum. What exactly has to be done with it will be discussed for the next forum, and enforced consistently. Possible actions discussed so far are to move it to a pile of rejected/unfeasible ideas (I've commented on possible drawbacks of this, which I think are in line with your concerns; see my posts above), or close the thread. If you have other suggestions, they're welcome to be considered.

By the way, I didn't say anything about moving things to Cafe; I said that the Cafe was one of the places more appropriate for that kind of discussion, meaning that people should start such threads there in the first place, or they should get moved there early if they absolutely have to. I don't think it will be suitable to throw a 300-post idea thread to Cafe in any case.

I'm not asking for freedom of speech here (although I tend not to trust people saying "absolute FOS doesn't exist"...), I'm just asking for coherence. If you want users ideas, let the users express their ideas. If you don't like them or consider them "unfeasible" just say it in the thread. No reason to stop others to suggest how to make the unfeasible feasible.

Just like you agree to be bound by the Ubuntu CoC and the forum rules when you sign up to the forums, you've so far been assumed to be in general agreement with the procedure going on here when you post your ideas. I don't think a separate opt-in scheme like the one used for the Backyard is necessary for this forum, but in the next one, it will perhaps be a good idea to put some basic prerequisites for participating in it in very clear terms, and moderate threads where they're not observed. Thanks for highlighting the need for this.

The problem with saying things are entirely unfeasible is that it has no power to actually end the unfruitful discussion. We've done that many times as well, as I said before. I think there has to be a threshold as to how long people have to turn an unfruitful thread into an efficient one, and that that threshold has been exceeded in many existing threads that are running.

[sicofante]

I'll let you know my humble opinion and leave the room: I see a bunch of moderators turned into a self-appointed technical elite and deciding what's right or wrong in regards to improving Ubuntu. I see a group of people who have asked for opinions to the user base and instead of just listening have decided to "moderate" discussions (moderation should be about keeping discussions civilised and polite, not imposing a moderator's technical point of view). You have failed to explain the need (and benefit) of closing threads. Doing that instead of leaving them open helps not an inch to make good ideas evolve (or bad ideas go away), makes the process of collecting ideas not an inch more efficient, but it makes people angry and leave (my case). I can't see the benefit of such an approach.

I believe any project needs leadership, but this is not leadership, it's just arbitrary power showing off. Closing threads on very questionable technical grounds is a call for people to leave, and that's what I'm doing. I just don't happen to think Mr. PriceChild knows more about removable file systems or user interaction design (or how much of that can be implemented in Ubuntu and when) than I do, and I'm sure any other decision like his can be questioned exactly the same.

[aysiu]

I believe the opposite: it is not constructive to leave open a thread on an idea that will never happen--that's being disingenuous.

If something's not going to happen, there's no point in discussing the possibility further... it's a waste of resources.

There are plenty of ideas I don't like that I've left open, and there are ideas I actually do like that have been closed... hell, I even closed one of my own threads!

As has been said before, Ubuntu was never set up to be a democracy. In fact, Ubuntu's founder appointed himself "benevolent dictator."

I'd be interested to see if a democracy-based development model could even work. It'd be a great experiment to see.

[sicofante]

I believe the opposite: it is not constructive to leave open a thread on an idea that will never happen--that's being disingenuous.
Who draws the line and on what grounds? Who says what will never happen? What sort of ultra-conservative approach is that? What do you need the users for? To say the obvious?

If something's not going to happen, there's no point in discussing the possibility further... it's a waste of resources.
Of what resources exactly? Disk space on the server? What's good about stopping other people's discussion? If you're not going to take that idea to UDS, what exact benefit comes from stopping it from evolving? What is the benefit of shutting people's voice? (Particularly when you have asked them to speak?)

There are plenty of ideas I don't like that I've left open, and there are ideas I actually do like that have been closed... hell, I even closed one of my own threads!
I see, so technical improvement in Ubuntu is just a couple of dice in the air.

As has been said before, Ubuntu was never set up to be a democracy. In fact, Ubuntu's founder appointed himself "benevolent dictator."
And you guys liked that and are trying to emulate him? What's your point?

I'd be interested to see if a democracy-based development model could even work. It'd be a great experiment to see.This has little to do with democracy (or free speech or anything like that, I've said that already). First of all, it's you who called the users to speak out. You don't expect people to bring great ideas to the table by deciding "what will never happen" beforehand, do you? (If so, don't expect much.) Second: I said I believe in leadership, but you don't create leadership out of nothing. You either have your pocket full of money (as the referred "dictator") or have merits that brought you to that leadership. No one has shown their technical merits here.

Moderating a forum to enforce elementary manners is one thing, deciding on what's feasible or not for an OS is quite another. Someone has crossed a red line here.

Asking a group of people for ideas and cutting them even before they grow on a proper discussion -and doing that with questionable technical criteria- is plain absurd.

[aysiu]

Moderating a forum to enforce elementary manners is one thing, deciding on what's feasible or not for an OS is quite another. Someone has crossed a red line here. If you really believe that's true, post a thread in the Resolution Center (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=123). And if you're not satisfied with how that turns out, bring it up with the Forum Council.

From https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ForumsGovernance Dispute Resolution

The FC will be responsible for maintaining forum guidelines and systems for internal conflict resolution (e.g., the forums resolution center).

Additionally, there should provide a documented method whereby any disagreements or conflicts between moderators can request a hearing by the FC.

In extreme situations, users and moderators who feel that they have not been given a fair hearing by the FC can appeal a decision to the CC. The CC considers the FC to be a greater authority on forums matters and in the majority of these cases, the CC will likely refer these issues back to the FC.

Any deadlock within the FC will can be referred to the community council for resolution.

[23meg]

I see a bunch of moderators turned into a self-appointed technical elite and deciding what's right or wrong in regards to improving Ubuntu. I see a group of people who have asked for opinions to the user base and instead of just listening have decided to "moderate" discussions (moderation should be about keeping discussions civilised and polite, not imposing a moderator's technical point of view).

To state again, "just listening" is contrary to the clearly stated goal of this forum and the people who suggested setting it up; it's what has been done in past development forums, leading to next to zero action and progress.

You're clearly generalizing on one single event in which you were affected, and which you could have criticized and resolved without painting an unfairly bleak picture of the general process. I and others have emphasized enough times, here and elsewhere, that the forum ambassadors are merely instrumental in this process; you're being unnecessarily harsh on a small group of people who have volunteered a great deal of time, energy and even money into it.

If you have any issues with moderation that you can't resolve, or with the tasks or scope of the forum ambassadors team, you can take your complaint to the forum council.

You have failed to explain the need (and benefit) of closing threads. Doing that instead of leaving them open helps not an inch to make good ideas evolve (or bad ideas go away), makes the process of collecting ideas not an inch more efficient, but it makes people angry and leave (my case). I can't see the benefit of such an approach.

The benefit of closing threads with ideas that are certainly not going to happen is leaving more room for ideas that actually have a chance of happening. An alternative method of moving unfeasible threads to a separate pile has been suggested, and if you have a better idea, you can let us know. What it comes down to is that threads on ideas that aren't going to happen shouldn't obscure others, and in this forum, they have. This has to be amended, one way or the other, because it causes a lot of inefficiency.

I believe any project needs leadership, but this is not leadership, it's just arbitrary power showing off. Closing threads on very questionable technical grounds is a call for people to leave, and that's what I'm doing. I just don't happen to think Mr. PriceChild knows more about removable file systems or user interaction design (or how much of that can be implemented in Ubuntu and when) than I do, and I'm sure any other decision like his can be questioned exactly the same.

My effort to read your complaints as civil and constructive criticsm instead of harsh self-centric commentary that makes generalizations to reach a predecided conclusion leads to thinking it may be a good idea to formalize this process further, and include a formal procedure for resolving possible conflicts between forum ambassadors and users participating in the Idea Pool. I'll take this to the next team leaders meeting. If you're inclined to just leave at the first sign of disagreement without even trying to resolve it, and without contributing to an effort to try to prevent similar occurences in the future, you're entitled to your decision.

[sicofante]

The benefit of closing threads with ideas that are certainly not going to happen is leaving more room for ideas that actually have a chance of happening.
That's simply not true. No room is taken from anywhere by leaving threads open.

I'm not worried about being shut up by a moderator on questionable technical grounds (I just leave and will be happy anyways), it's the principle on which this was done what took me here to complain.

Just to be "constructive" (I think I've been constructive so far, but anyway) and forget about it, here's a proposal (call it a draft, since English is not my mother tongue and maybe it can be said in many other ways):

Compare this:The moderators/forum ambassadors have found the idea in this thread won't make it to the next version of Ubuntu (Gutsy Gibbon). Please feel free to continue the discussion but please note the idea described here will not be proposed to the developers this time. Your contribution is very valuable and we encourage you to keep posting ideas in the forum.
To this:I'm closing this thread.[meaning, "I have the power and you shut up"]
The idea is most likely never to be implemented into Ubuntu because it is a "feature". [WTF???] It maintains system speed and stability under heavy load. [?????] [meaning: "If you don't agree technically with me, you're out of luck"]
You choose the model that you think will encourage people to keep posting ideas. I've made my point.

[23meg]

Who draws the line and on what grounds? Who says what will never happen?

Ultimately, people who actually work on and govern Ubuntu do (refer to this page (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/processes/governance) for some detail). To repeat myself and the guidelines in the first post once again, ambassadors, and moderators who take initiative to close threads, are merely assumed to be well informed on what has no chance of happening in Ubuntu. Since they're humans, they can misjudge at times, and since they abide by the CoC, they would perhaps like to be notified of their misjudgements in a civil and constructive manner that addresses those specific misjudgements, without baseless generalizations.


Of what resources exactly? Disk space on the server? What's good about stopping other people's discussion? If you're not going to take that idea to UDS, what exact benefit comes from stopping it from evolving? What is the benefit of shutting people's voice? (Particularly when you have asked them to speak?)

That's simply not true. No room is taken from anywhere by leaving threads open.

It's your assumption that's simply not true, while mine can have some truth in it, depending on the situation. When a completely useless thread is bumped on top of a thread with a well detailed and feasible idea, no room is lost? Do people take time to scan the whole forum end to end to find threads they're interested in contributing to, and not stick with the first page or two mostly? Both are absolutely untrue. I have enough experience with both these forums, and web forums in general to know.

Also see post #29 (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=2538564&postcount=29) in this thread.

I see, so technical improvement in Ubuntu is just a couple of dice in the air.

It would have been, had it relied entirely or largely on input from the forums moderated by regular forum moderators. Thankfully that's not the case; if you thought it was for some reason, perhaps you should spend some time reading https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment .

And you guys liked that and are trying to emulate him? What's your point?

That's exactly the point, in a sense: we know and mostly like and agree with the way Ubuntu is governed and developed, and have chosen to take active part in the process, in the sole hope of empowering users who so far haven't had the means of doing so. If you dislike and/or disagree with the way Ubuntu is governed, you should take it up with the Technical Board or Community Council, not us.

You don't expect people to bring great ideas to the table by deciding "what will never happen" beforehand, do you?

Not by deciding, since, to repeat myself, we aren't making decisions ourselves, but by indicating what's already been decided. I expect people who set out to propose ideas to know why Skype won't ever be included by default, to know what main, Universe and Multiverse are and what goes and can't go into which, so on. The whole point of this thread was to better inform people who seemed to be out of touch with the realities of what they were setting out to be involved in. All the information in the first post is available elsewhere; it's just put in one place here for convenience, and especially given that that's been done, it's entirely realistic to expect people to know what they're talking about when posting ideas.

Second: I said I believe in leadership, but you don't create leadership out of nothing. You either have your pocket full of money (as the referred "dictator") or have merits that brought you to that leadership. No one has shown their technical merits here.

The posting histories of people who have taken initiative to close threads stand as indication of their technical merits and experience with Ubuntu. You're entitled not to acknowledge them as such; if that's the case, the place to take your issue is the forum council.


Compare this:

....

To this:

...

You choose the model that you think will encourage people to keep posting ideas. I've made my point.

Thanks for the options; guess which we'll choose!

On a serious note, the process will almost certainly be refined for the next release, and I'm for having separate sections for "brainstorming" only (similar to what the Idea Pool mostly is now), and for discussion of ideas where the original poster has done a good deal of research into and/or done part of the work in getting the feature they propose implemented, such as making mockups, finding developers interested, pointing to existing related bugs/specs, so on. Ideas in "brainstorming" can be moved to the other section if they mature.

It's obvious that most people just want to talk and keep talking, and not actually lend a hand in getting what they're talking about accomplished. I agree that they should be allowed to do so, as long as their discourse doesn't obscure the rest of the process; the problem is that it does right now, and that's a limitation we run into with the existing structure.

[sicofante]

Thanks for the options; guess which we'll choose!
Yeah, I know. The discouraging one. Point taken. Bye guys. [unsubscribing]

[Hobbsee]

From http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=2691368#post2691368

It'd certainly be an interesting demographic to see.

It'd be something that the developers would look at - the recent post on planet about the top 10 things wanted by someone from ubuntu was quite interesting.

But they'd be viewed more as suggestions - and I doubt that people would drop what they were interested in implementing, just to implement one of the suggestions. Unless they were particularly interested in it of course.

And the closing of threads was something I originally suggested (i think) - it's only to try and organise the threads into good ones, and ones that wont happen. This is needed if the idea section is to be a productive place. Of course, if you just want the section to be a free-for-all "put my idea out there", but never seriously read and thought upon by people outside the forums - go ahead. But then dont expect the majority of your ideas to be in ubuntu either - if they are, it'll have been because someone else thought of it, and put it somewhere useful and found someone, maybe themselves, who was also interested in it, to implement it.

most of ^ also applies to this thread.

[serxubuser]

i like the idea of creating some sub forums 1 for new ideas and let me say 5 other
in forum 1 everyone can post new idea topics
the moderating team looks in forum 1
and decide to move the new idea topic to the other
forums
so they sort all the topics out in for example quality or chance to get implemented or whatever
in those 5 forums you cannot post new topics but you can reply to the existing topics to continue discussion
and in every moved topic the moderating team should post info why it is moved to ... en how to get the idea working something like that would be nice

[Aquilastudio.com]

I suggest making Dell printers supported in Ubuntu.

[Sonrep]

I suggest making Dell printers supported in Ubuntu.
+1
More newer printers needs to be supported.