Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #38064, comment 5
- Timestamp:
- 09/16/2016 06:08:39 AM (9 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #38064, comment 5
v1 v2 9 9 I know it is run as a meritocracy, and I indeed fully support this. It is pretty much one of the foundational principles of the entire open source movement. 10 10 11 I guess I have used terms that are too political to convey my message, and what's more, I'm myself not entirely whether what I propose would be a good or a bad idea.11 I guess I have used terms that are too political to convey my message, and what's more, I'm myself not entirely sure whether what I propose would be a good or a bad idea. 12 12 13 The point is, when large teams collaborate, there 'stwo ways to productively conclude a discussion:13 The point is, when large teams collaborate, there are two ways to productively conclude a discussion: 14 14 15 15 1. Participants agree on a consensus. 16 16 2. An authority takes a decision. 17 17 18 The way I feel things are currently run, you either need to be able to achieve 1., or your discussions will turn in circles (or be post -poned from release to release), as no-one can or will impose 2.18 The way I feel things are currently run, you either need to be able to achieve 1., or your discussions will turn in circles (or be postponed from release to release), as no-one can or will impose 2. 19 19 20 20 For 1., the discussion needs to follow clear argumentation, where all the arguments that are introduced by each of the sides can either be asserted or refuted. Only facts and hard data can be asserted or refuted, opinions can't. Arguments are asserted or refuted until only the valid ones are left, and these are then weighed against each other to determine whether it's an overall improvement or not. … … 22 22 This is where the problem lies in my eyes. The needs and wants of the end-users are cited as facts and used as arguments, but most of the time, they are just opinions, as there's no means to verify them. And in the cases where such non-facts are used as arguments, no consensus is possible, so only a final authoritative decisions could properly conclude the discussion. And, as far as I can tell, this is not what happens in most of the cases. 23 23 24 I know th ere's user tests being made for UX changes, for example, and there'sserver data being collected. But why not have a tool that allows us to query the users (that opted-in) directly? Why not let them tell you their biggest pain points? Why not let them help you define the priorities? I don't suggest just using that data and blindly following it. But I think that, in this case, more data is better than less data...24 I know that user tests being made for UX changes, for example, and that server data being collected. But why not have a tool that allows us to query the users (that opted-in) directly? Why not let them tell you their biggest pain points? Why not let them help you define the priorities? I don't suggest just using that data and blindly following it. But I think that, in this case, more data is better than less data... 25 25 26 26 > "Design for the majority" is a philosophy and a goal, not some kind of literal process or a singularly decisive factor. I recognize that "the majority" constantly gets cited as an argument, but so do a lot of things - it does not inherently make that a good argument at all times. And don't forget, that same philosophies page that describes "design for the majority" contains a reminder about the vocal minority.