Timeline for Changing how community leadership works on Stack Exchange: a proposal and rough timeline
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 28 at 14:28 | comment | added | mousetail 'he-him' |
@n00dles The actual issue with !important specifically on Stack Exchange is these styles are harder to override in userscripts or userstyles.
|
|
| Oct 6 at 19:46 | comment | added | n00dles |
What's wrong with !important?
|
|
| Mar 25 at 23:17 | comment | added | Wildcard | @Slate the only way I see that a PAC would be the most useful solution would be if we were in a state where you had a ton of developers available and they didn't know what to work on. Wait...actually scratch that...even then I don't see why it would be useful. The PAC wouldn't be able to tell the company, "Ditch the AI ideas, they distract from your mission." So at best it would be able to tell you how to allocate the small percentage of dev time devoted to the actual product. But you could do that just by reading meta. | |
| Feb 29 at 13:12 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @MaartenBodewes: even if there is some internal information in the company's issue tracker, introducing another issue tracker is unlikely to improve the situation - that would actually result in 3 systems where bugs and features are tracked. I think TylerH's suggestion makes most sense (maybe with some filter to keep internal discussions hidden from the public). | |
| Feb 29 at 12:46 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes | @DocBrown True, but I'm not sure what data is in there. I could imagine that there are internal discussions in there that are not OK to be seen by the community and everyone around. Probably there shouldn't be, but you know how it goes if it is expected to be company confidential in essence. | |
| Feb 29 at 7:00 | comment | added | Doc Brown | @MaartenBodewes: I would expect the SE company's developers already using an issue tracker internally. It would be nice if the community could see which of the bugs and features from meta are already listed there, and which are ignored or classified as "won't fix". | |
| Feb 22 at 20:49 | comment | added | KRyan |
I’ll vouch for the !important thing being, well, important.
|
|
| Feb 22 at 18:28 | comment | added | Peter Turner | I was really looking forward to using the answer labels on Christianity.SE so we could ask generic questions and get Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox/etc.. answers on questions and not start literal holy wars. | |
| Feb 21 at 21:17 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes | The first thing the PAC should imho advocate for is an issue tracker... | |
| Feb 21 at 17:15 | comment | added | TylerH | @Slate it's both. I'm certainly more interested in the former right now, but establishing working relationships is also important, but with that being said, we already had that, until the company severed those lines repeatedly. I'm absolutely interested in any changes to make communication more transparent, because that's a large part about what makes said communication more effective. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:49 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | Truthfully, @TylerH, if your point is that the PAC's expressed interests actually need to be worked on to be effective - then point taken. But if your feedback is that community-driven prioritization efforts (and establishing clear lines of two-way communication about product changes) are just misplaced, I am not sure I agree. A group of users with whom working relationships can be built, and who can advocate for the interests of the network as a whole, is not the same as a public issue tracker. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:46 | comment | added | rene Mod | A dark view on this is: We know nothing will be done / changed / fixed but lets try another diversion before they notice. Keep in mind that public Q/A is done as product and as such it only needs maintenance, just like chat. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:44 | comment | added | TylerH | @Slate So... the PAC is just going to repeat to the product team the existing bug and feature-request posts people already make on Meta sites? Maybe instead of a PAC, just make your Jira or whatever ticket names and their current statuses publicly visible, so we can actually see what's being worked on and when? | |
| Feb 21 at 16:42 | comment | added | Kevin B | i mean... working on any of it would be a win. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:38 | comment | added | Slate StaffMod | I would almost be inclined to say you are demonstrating the need for a PAC on my behalf. The list of possible changes to the Stack Exchange network is enormous, from small tweaks to major overhauls. Working on it in any arbitrary order is likely to lead to a disconnect between what users feel is important, and the work that actually gets done. This would, in practice, be very similar to what we have today: A lot of work to be done, and substantial difficulty understanding and ranking the relative importance of most of it. | |
| Feb 21 at 16:31 | history | answered | TylerH | CC BY-SA 4.0 |