WordPress.org

Make WordPress Core

Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #38064, comment 5


Ignore:
Timestamp:
09/16/2016 06:08:39 AM (5 years ago)
Author:
schlessera
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #38064, comment 5

    v1 v2  
    99I 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.
    1010
    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.
     11I 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.
    1212
    13 The point is, when large teams collaborate, there's two ways to productively conclude a discussion:
     13The point is, when large teams collaborate, there are two ways to productively conclude a discussion:
    1414
    15151. Participants agree on a consensus.
    16162. An authority takes a decision.
    1717
    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.
     18The 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.
    1919
    2020For 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.
     
    2222This 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.
    2323
    24 I know there's user tests being made for UX changes, for example, and there's 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...
     24I 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...
    2525
    2626> "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.