As the original poster I ought to respond to replies that I have elicited, but my apologies, I only found them a few days ago as my post (which was in reply to another) got shifted into this forum which until very recently I did not subscribe to - so no notifications.
The guts of the replies are in Helen's original post and I don't want to do a point by point reply but I think a few points may be made.
1. Moving posts. If the "New Wish List Request" is in the views of the mods something arising due to a user not understanding how the existing product (together with plug-ins) works, moving it to General Usage is I think appropriate and fair enough. There may be a certain number of posts first to clarify that that is the case - to avoid yo-yo'ing.
If, however, the post has a new requirement or a tweak to existing functionality and is moving towards a specification either of a wish list item for CP or a plug-in request for them or others to develop, perhaps it should stay in the New Wish List Request sub-forum (or be moved back into it) for two reasons:
- If maintains focus and ideas don't get lost in "General Usage". If matters don't progress they can be moved - as Helen does with Wish List items that stall for lack of user response - or they can be left to dwell in the back pages.
- Discussions of future enhancements or plug-ins may not be of prime interest to users of General Usage who are focused on "what can be done now". If they are interested they can subscribe to the New Wish List Request sub-forum.
With regard to requirements that might be met by new plug-ins, we are still talking about a "user need/user specification" process, so I think the New Wish List Request sub-forum is the bast place for initial discussions. Perhaps we have two wish lists to which requests may eventually go:
- "The Wish List" (for CP to consider) and
- "Plug-in Requests" for more complex plug-ins - distinct from the Sub-forum "Plug-in Discussions" which feels very LUA-specialist! Some plug-ins and some plug-in creators appears so fast this may not be required. Some times the plug-in may be a means of honing the requirements. "I want functionality like in plug-in X, but fully integrated into main code".
2. Items in the New Wish List Request sub-forum are there to be honed and clarified and tested - with suitable prodding. That is the purpose of the sub-forum?
3. Perhaps the labour involved can usefully be divided between the existing gatekeepers and the wider subscribers to the sub-forum - the latter prodding the requester to shape their request into a form that satisfies the gatekeepers. If that is the process, I doubt you need more gatekeepers - it's the prodders that are required. If this Sub-forum is active will they self-select - no "wanted ads" required? And also no worrying about creating another set of access rights?
4. In terms of criteria:
ColeValleyGirl wrote: ↑25 Jul 2022 18:33
But I suggest we need as a minimum:
- a clear problem statement -- couched in terms of what isn't possible but is desired, and why
- a statement of existing related Wish List items, and why they don't meet the need
What we don't need is an attempt to design a solution!
I think that probably covers the key issues - and possibly should be added to the "pinned post".
5. To help avoid repeat requests I think all request discussion should acquire a "disposition statement" from a mod or a wishlist gatekeeper when discussion seems to have plateaued which could be:
- Moved to General Usage for discussion as to how these requirements are currently met.
- Wish list Item XYZ created
- Deemed to be a program bug and ticket raised with CP
- Plug-in solution identified and either (i) created or (ii) put in the list of requested plug-ins
- [Temporary | Permanent] Work around defined and documented in KB (or added to the list on Maintaining The Knowledge Base)
- CP documentation issue and ticket raised with CP
- Other ...
I don't think we necessarily need to "close" a request. I don't see why for some requirements discussion may not continue or be reopened after a disposition statement but it is a means of taking stock and letting people know what has happened.
6. "Other" in the list above is because I think we do need to grapple with the hopefully only occasional "nonsense ideas".
For instance "Bad genealogical Practice" (?!) "I have a requirement for additional entry screens so that I can easily create a new family for each household for each census and link the 1891 household to the 1881 household by means of a child-parent relationship". (And please don't respond saying you think that is a "grand idea" - it's just an example!)
Or "Support nightmare" "I want to be able to directly edit the GEDCOM file from within FH just as I can edit a text note"
How do we "dispose" of such ideas - or do we just let them dwell in the back pages of the sub-forum like an unwanted orphan?