beta changes?

Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5

13 events

when toggle format	what		by	license	comment
Nov 7, 2012 at 18:49	vote	accept	Kyle Trauberman
Mar 12, 2011 at 6:42	comment	added	Jeff Atwood		@shreev ample feedback was given in both cases; if you'd like to contact me on skype to discuss either one further, please do -- my username is codinghorror or "Jeff Atwood" from El Cerrito CA 94530.
Mar 12, 2011 at 6:32	comment	added	ShreevatsaR		@Jeff: Perhaps you'd like to go to this question and either (1) listen to those who complained and give some feedback, or (2) explain from your end why you continued to think the change was an improvement. Or go here and explain why the entire community was wrong, and you, an outsider, were right. Both trivial instances no doubt, but your refusal to communicate is a bad sign.
Mar 12, 2011 at 6:19	comment	added	Jeff Atwood		@shreev both #1 and #2 are not true, but I find your beliefs fascinating.
Mar 11, 2011 at 21:53	comment	added	Kyle Trauberman		@ShreevatsaR that's the point of this suggestion. If the community has a chance to see upcoming changes, they can provide feedback, and let the feature mature before it's released into the wild. I see a completely different problem with the envelope release. A feature was removed with the intention that it be re-added in the near future. Why not just wait until the whole thing was ready before rolling it out? Doing something like this would help the devs identify shortcomings like this and fix the immaturities before rolling it out to everyone.
Mar 11, 2011 at 21:50	comment	added	ShreevatsaR		While something like this would work for the recent change that inspired this, I feel this suggestion focuses on the wrong problem, misses the bigger picture. The real problem is that those who run StackExchange make changes and then, (1) completely ignore the community's feedback, and (2) entirely refuse to explain why they made the change. In an ideal world, those in favour and those opposed would attempt to convince each other and, if not reach a compromise, at least understand the other's reasoning. Here, when the SE people (Atwood/whoever) remain mute and deaf, no progress is possible.
Mar 11, 2011 at 20:26	answer	added	David Fullerton		timeline score: 16
Mar 11, 2011 at 18:07	comment	added	Kyle Trauberman		Yeah, thats an unfortunate side effect of this. I guess the question is: is it a necessary evil?
Mar 11, 2011 at 17:57	history	edited	Kyle Trauberman		edited tags
Mar 11, 2011 at 17:51	history	edited	Kyle Trauberman		edited tags; edited tags
Mar 11, 2011 at 17:43	answer	added	Pekka		timeline score: 7
Mar 11, 2011 at 17:28	comment	added	Rup		Stating the obvious: but that means having both sets of code in the app at once, which is developer hassle. I can't see them going for this.
Mar 11, 2011 at 17:16	history	asked	Kyle Trauberman	CC BY-SA 2.5