Remember the Two Cultures of C.P. Snow? Sorry to give you a Wikipedia on that -- it comes up first all the time! You can try other versions of the story here (which unconsciously refers to Lysenkosim), or here. There's even a kind of subterfuge afoot to introduce a Third Culture which is merely the Second Culture (science) trying to prevail again.
Imagine, Stewart Brand, the Whole Earth Catalogue guy, writing this sort of patent nonsense, a glass of Kool-Aid in hand:
"Science is the only news. When you scan through a newspaper or magazine, all the human interest stuff is the same old he-said-she-said, the politics and economics the same sorry cyclic dramas, the fashions a pathetic illusion of newness, and even the technology is predictable if you know the science. Human nature doesn't change much; science does, and the change accrues, altering the world irreversibly."
Ugh.
Here's an interesting debate on the JIRA which is in a way about the Two Cultures, except I would submit that the extremist sect within the open-source movement isn't really the original Second Culture as understood some years ago, and would likely be repudiated possibly even by Snow. And BTW, even Wikipedia's article on Open Source lets you know that it is a school of thought -- nay, even a sect, or group of sects, or collection of sect-tending thinkers. You would never know from hanging around Second Life that even within the movement, Open Source has intense critics, like here or here or my favourite, Bezroukov, bog ego sokhrani, here.
(BTW, if you want to see the resurrection of the odious Second Citizen, and the closed-minds-on-parade in full regalia, go to SLuniverse.com to see the fanboyz defend their JIRA; you can see it on the so-called Open Architecture Working Group page as well.) I've written a lot about how Open Source=Closed Society. Oh, and here's a good piece about the geeky religiousity behind the Web. Oh! And here's another great piece that gets at some of the really pesky roots of this OS stuff which is essentially about the Christian "good works" notion (i.e. "faith without works is dead") in that it posits that altruistic individuals doing good for free, i.e. doing free coding ostensibly for selfless motives will change the world. Of course, what's fake about all that is that behind every faux altruistic coder in a basement is either Mom, Welfare, or a Big IT Job or something that Pays For it All.)
For those of you with strong constitutions, here's the link to the entire JIRA discussion on my proposal, "Bugs And Proposals Shouldn't Be Moved or Closed Without Author Consent". (It was originally titled properly, as an anticipated proposal reaching completion *should* be titled, as "Bugs and Proposals Cannot" -- but Soft Linden edited it).
Here's the last bit which reflects the Two Cultures:
Posted by Celierra Darling:
- I didn't mean that the discussion itself (or its size, etc.) was wasteful, but just the fact that it seems to be going nowhere.
- I'll agree that the different definition of "resolved" is causing problems. Here, "resolved" is used as meaning "people think there isn't anything more to be done about this, but it's not consensus". Most people take it as simply "it's done with" - but that is what we mean by "closed". There's been a lot of discussion about this misunderstanding, and I've been trying to get the word "resolved" changed (WEB-247, which is "resolved" but with the meaning of "we're currently helpless on this").
Meanwhile, though, I think that if you keep the *intended* meaning of "resolved" in mind, you might find that there's a lot less intentional malice or "killing off" out there than you are attributing....
- I think you should know that you're up against some basic properties of an entire system that harnesses a huge community's power in order to deal with huge amounts of data. The idea of these systems has been ingrained into the computer science field and has been shown - repeatedly in projects like Mozilla's Firefox and Wikipedia so forth - to work incredibly well. For example, these principles are things like "anyone has access", "everything is open for inspection", "everything that can be easily undone can be done by anyone", etc.
To be honest, a lot of your argument seems to be a result of culture shock - this sort of freeform trusting collaborative effort isn't really encountered by most people outside of CS (though it's starting to gain traction).
So yes, there is a great amount of support of the status quo, because you're trying to change the foundations of things that have been shown to work. If you want to continue arguing to change this system, you'll probably need to reason out and explain how your proposed change might affect LL's utility, and how to replace the functionality in a way that LL would be willing to implement. From my admittedly-brief scan of this page, I don't think you've thought your change through this much...
Or, you might want to start arguing things within the constraints of this system - for example, if you want to argue that resolving an issue doesn't fall under "easily undone" for those users unfamiliar with JIRA, you might have a point there. Personally, I've been trying to reduce the "culture shock" aspect of it, which is a big problem - see the (many-part) issue WEB-194.
- The Lindens have all the power here - and unfortunately for the "democratic" idea, Linden Lab is a company, operating via hierarchy and a benevolent monarchy (from Philip Linden). Yes, they could always institute something more "democratic" from our POV, but remember who has the power here. We, the residents, are totally cordoned off from their power structure - I'm sure they look at it in terms of "listening to their customers", which is more of a nebulous goal than someone to report to. We're all almost the same in LL's eyes (though certainly with some ranking or weighting).
So, specifically, I don't think we (simple residents) are going to get any LL-imposed power structure at all - from LL's view, there is no direct power in our hands, so any "election" to determine "power" probably seems silly and meaningless. Our interests are very different, so we don't get to decide anything especially important anyway. Their goal is not to simply satisfy residents, but to do the things that are most likely to fall within the intersection of "make money" and "change the world" and "satisfy people" and "help the company" and "please Philip" and on and on and on... and we should not have any illusion of direct power or representation over any aspect of LL.
All we can hope for in terms of "organization", I think, is a sort of volunteer "ombudsman" position, for those people who can translate between Lindenese and Normalese. I think "good citizens" has become the people whom various LL staff consider to be a representative group of good ombudsmans. The big distinction is that, here, LL gets to choose *their ombudsmans* - residents don't get to choose "representatives". This isn't really an optimal system for residents, but it's not that bad for LL, and we don't control LL. You might try to argue that LL's choices of people to trust stink, but ... to be honest, that most likely will just cause LL to think you're disconnected from their interests.
... I can't really speak for LL, of course, but this is my interpretation on the meta of what's going on here.
...it's getting late for me, so I'm sorry if that last part stopped making sense...
[ Permlink | « Hide ]
Prokofy Neva - 02/Dec/07 11:56 AM
Celierra, just because something goes "nowhere" for you doesn't mean it does universally. In, I was surprised to find buried under the pile in the JIRA at least two other attempts by people I don't know over the last 6 months or so to start *exactly* this same JIRA in response to the problem of arbitrary closure, and even a call to enable only Lindens to close JIRAs.
Ordinal Malaprop has an eloquent JIRA to remove the fallacious and misleading of "resolved." It's not that there is a "misunderstanding," it's that there is a deliberately misleading jargonistic spin being put on the word to make it *seem* as if progress is occurring. It isn't. There isn't any actual "intended meaning," because if there were, a different word could easily be substituted without all the static. And indeed the resistance to having changed this long ago illustrates that there is far more malice than you're willing to admit -- or at least deep-seated denial.
I think *you* should know that it is *you* who are up against a huge community's power to harness data -- it's called "the rest of real life" and "the non-sectarians" and "the non-tekkies of this type". Not even all tekkies are open-source extremists of the type we see in Second Life. It's not as if you represent some powerful force that has some legitimacy merely by its "hugeness". Indeed, that is a grave fallacy, as it makes you act in ways that are damaging to the whole of society.
What you imagine is "ingrained into the science community" is in fact ingrained only to *some of it* and represents a movement that in fact is criticized severely even within the open-source community itself. There is nothing "scientific" about Wikipedia or demonstratively "better" about Firefox except among its zealous fans. Wikipedia is roundly and rightly criticized in many quarters precisely because it represents anonymous and unaccountable skewing of information by the few under the guise that it is open to the many.
Your notions invoked here like "anyone has access" or "everything is open for inspection" or "everything that can be easily undone can be done by anyone" etc. are first of all falsehoods -- propagandistic maneuvers that cover up the truth of the situation: a handful of "expert" cadres gather around each instance of this false "openness" and in fact close it for everyone else, invoking their elite and superior status. They behave in fact worse than the proper editorial board that they purport to overthrow in the name of openness, because they are arbitrary, unaccountable, and often stubbornly ignorant. They represent "the dictatorship of the proletariat". It is anything *but* the democratic and liberal "openness" that you imply. When "anyone has access," vandals have access, too. Sectarians with harsh extremist agendas have access -- and use it. Arbitrary and whimsical notions prevail in the undoing of things. The Big Lie prevails by faking progressing and implying everything is being resolved, and moving along fine.
A lot of the resistance here on the JIRA; the sort of responses a certain set have always engendered on the forums (with Linden backing); and much else around the culture of Second Life are all in fact manifestations of culture shock *by these people themselves*. I'm not the one with "culture shock"; you are. You are shocked that someone resists what you imagine to be the hegemonic norm. But it isn't; it's a sect, and will go on being treated as one, more and more, until ultimately the project fails if it cannot adapt to real liberal democracy and cannot drop its totalitarian methods.
Because there isn't any "new culture" here. The idea that "anyone can undo" and "anyone has access" is in fact straight out of the playbook of propagandistic Bolshevism: ostensibly open up a process to everyone, give away all property, make people's councils, etc. etc. -- and in fact have a small cadre of people *really* run it.
Freeform trusting collaboration can work when there is a narrowly-defined task and a group of like-minded people. Even there, many doubts can be placed as to its efficacy. Possibly a task like "let's manufacture a new car" or "let's repair the broken servers" lend themselves to this collectivization and democratic centralism you call "collaboration".
But other more complex tasks like "let's have a government" or "let's have a system for democratic participation of a user population in the product being created for their use" are *not* suited to this collectivization or fake "collaboration" -- especially when in fact they don't own the property being changed. It's just that simple.
It is *you* who are trying to change the foundations of the status quo established over the millenia by numerous human communities in every era. And the ideology for your change has already been "done" in the last century, with tragic consequences. You cannot fake collaboration when it does not exist. You cannot collectivize everyone. There must be protection of minorities, freedom of expression, and a willingness to accept new data and feedback to peacefully change this "collective will" that in fact ends up being imposed from on high by violence when it cannot gain consent.
Linden Lab is trying to elevate to cult status open-source culture that in fact itself is under fire even within the open-source community. Various artifacts of their regime -- the Love Machine, the Tao, the JIRA, the SL Views -- are all out of the playbook of past utopianist ideologies that are failed. While they may appear as grand experiments on the bleeding edge, in real life, the execution of these ideologies in any kind of massive real way only led to people bleeding, not edges.
I've thought through my proposal abundantly because I was an apt student of the previous Feature Voting Tool in the two years before it was summarily killed off by one resident, Angel Fluffy, with the applause of a few busy Lindens. I followed how the chimera of an improved FVT was waved before an indifferent public and how in fact it was killed by stealth by not being "migrated" but by being "deleted". It really is an appalling thing when a world created under the banner of "your world, your imagination," can, in the dark of the night, be deleted -- losing thousands of proposals hammered out by residents -- *their content* -- that in fact accrued hundreds of votes -- *their content*. Lindens tend to think narrowly of "content" as only what skilled programmers make in code or on PSP. But content is democratic participation, too.
The culture shock, again, needs to be reduced on the side of the tekkie wikinistas. They need to stop slamming their outmoded, outdated sectarian culture down the throats of normal people outside their magic circle who have absolutely no reason to drop the normal, democratic, participatory procedures of real life for this insanity. They'll need to adjust, and stop screaming in a sectarian manner for things like removal of the right to vote "no," or removal of the right of a person to express consent, or removal of content arbitrarily and whimsically. There is nothing sacrosanct about their approaches; there is nothing new. Indeed, they are a very old story.
The idea that "Linden Lab is a company" or "Linden Lab is a benevolent monarchy" simply can't wash any more in the era of *open-source*. Are you imagine these two facts of hegemony and authoritarianism are to ever and anon pertain in the open-source setting? Are you imagining that some cadres will decide everything, even so? Are you to imagine that a set of "avant-garde workers" will get to set everything about this software in stone before it is open-sourced so as to keep control over the world forever? Why? And how?
No, the Lindens -- and you -- have to remember who *else* has the power here: the people who pay tier, whether on a 512 m2 or 512 islands -- the people who pay 80 percent of the Lindens' bottom line. That is a significant venture capitalist vote, my dear. It matters. And even if they unceremoniously dump these people in favour of a new hook-up fee with their special friends who can make open Sims, they will still have to have some kind of consent of the governed or people will flock to Multiverse or Metaplace or whatever.
It's not just that we have the "vote with our feet". The Lindens in fact instituted the FVT and then later the JIRA precisely because in their hippie fastness, they do have at least some nominal concession to the idea of democratic participation. I think the illusion that you and others so willing to ascribe power to the Lindens in excessive of the actuality (and hence ascribe it to their fanboyz gathering around them so zealously) is that this is a situation in nature that can last. It can't. You cannot control the many by the few without their consent for long.
Ombudsmen are something I know about. It's no accident that you find very few people with this title in the United States, except in very localized and narrow settings, i.e. "the state ombudsman for education". That's because the U.S. has a common-law system with a very important feature: adversarial defense. By contrast other systems have a civil-law system with magisterial power against which adversarial defense is weak, or non-existent.
Ombudsmen tend to be prescribed, for example, by Western Europeans with established democracies and more homogenous cultures, for example, for Central Asians, as a way of getting around the problem of their failure to reform their Soviet-style unjust "justice systems".
Ombudsmen can work when they have a narrow set of tasks, the support of parliament, transparency and accountability, and real influence -- if not the power of intervention -- over the executive and judicial branches.
The ombudsmen here in SL are appointed by the executive branch, the Lindens, and do not have widespread popular support (it's like the problem of the resmods on the forums). They don't translate between Lindenese and Normalese. They are a conveyor belt for power who are abject loyalists basically like-minded to what they perceive as the Linden project (and often we find them more zealous than their masters, yet their masters seem powerless to curb them).
Ultimately, at root, the P-JIRA is a sop. It's a rubber-stamp parliament. The real decisions are made on Battery Street, not here. While that is a fact of life for many valid reasons, there isn't any good reason to cover up this fact with the prettification of claiming "good citizenry" and "your world, your imagination" when they don't truly exist.
Reply to Fluf from the JIRA:
>I commonly associate the use of lengthy commentary to confuse and confound the argument of an issue (as in "Filibuster").
Well, that's your problem. I guess you didn't have sufficient background in the humanities, or even the history of science. Long text abound in life. Often a long text is required to rebut every single point in detail. Deal with it.
"Clear concise communication" is just shorthand for "jargon me and my buddies can understand". Every profession or grouplet has its jargon. I'm not required to master it or spout it just to participate in the JIRA. Precisely because there is no shared understanding it can take longer to rebut the points, and your notion that it has to be shoehorned into some template of 500 words is evidently a hangover of your tekkie engineering background.
Um, have you looked at any technical manuals lately? Gosh, they are long suckers. Detailed. Fine print. Awful stuff.
You begin spouting your ideological mindset from the get-go, mistaking as "the facts" what are merely your religious beliefs about the JIRA which I don't share.
If the JIRA good citizens were good-natured, they'd have no need to fly into fits, screeching and squawking at the slightest resistance to their will. You'd never see an evil quantity like Thunder Mortgridge, who called me "the Cho of Second Life" (what a freak) on the Dell blog, just to get street cred with Second Citizen.
You wouldn't see WarKirby and Thraxis, two young fellas with parental issues evidently, spouting and fuming and carrying on.
Instead, there'd be invocation of facts, and not fiats, like some other denizens of the SC (Coyote's boyfriend? hello?) just saying "oh, this is not an engineering issue" and closing it with prejudice.
None of these are good citizens. They're Second Citizens. They are *bad* citizens. They have no love of the truth; they have no inquiring minds; they have no attention to the facts; they only think of self-interest and sucking up to the Lindens and gaining reputational points.
As I pointed out, I didn't make up the word citizen; Rob Linden did.
The user can't count on other users to re-open his issue as a check and balance against the overzealous closers. Not at all. As witnessed by the fact that i'm the *third person* to mount a JIRA proposal like this.
The Lindens themselves told us that the Feature Voting Tool was to be improved and enhanced in a new governance system. We were assured this would be "migrated". I was told that it wasn't really being destroyed by Angel Fluffy, just, um, "cleaned up" because of "duplication and off-topic proposals" etc. Uh-uh. That's how they always do it.
The definition of governance you cite is a good one to explain that a) the JIRA is governance and b) it is wrongful and unjust governance.
It's not a customer feedback template when the relationship is not soley between the customer and the company; but in a triangle of one customer/another customer/the company.
It's that third leg of the triangle that makes it all difference. When I suggest a feature to Sony or Verizon, I'm not told to get in line to battle with other customers who think differently on a difficult-to-use device like a JIRA. I file the proposal, and that's it.
The Lindens can't have it both ways. They can't engage in this act of pitting groups of customers against each other and picking and chosing, and then pretend they have merely customer feedback, and not a government.
It's hardly off-topic when the Lindens allow a group of uneducated, insolent script kiddies and lifer adults with issues who hang around an OS project all day to control the world merely by virtue of their free labour and fierce obsessiveness. The people who pay money matter, too. In fact, as Maklin pointed out, given that we do pay money, the Lindens should have a more company/customer relationship and not be taking free labour from people whom one must then challenge and fight to get at the Lindens' intentions.
There aren't any "many others". This is one of the deepest and most perplexing fallacies of this OS sect that has infected the JIRA . They don't represent even the OS movement; they surely don't represent even the class of all those people who are computer science experts.
Second Life merely gave all these Linux nutters and information-wants-to-be-free socialist hippies a big platform for amplification of their shrill and uneducated ideas.
>You also brush across the fact that people watching an issue are instantly alerted to it's closure at the moment anyway. So in effect the democratic peer review already occurs doesn't it?
Not at all. People are intimidated; people don't get the email; people give up; people come back and open it only to see it closed again; notification is not consent.
>I actually said there would be 5,000 open issues, not closed. And since I can't actually decode the rest of the paragraph to tell if you meant open or closed ... I'll sit and contemplate ... something
Um, shall we go over it again? I know it's likely pitched over your head. 5,000 open issues are 5,000 closed issues in fact, because you're anticipating that everything you CLAIMED was logical and without dispute now in the existing system, would, in the system I envision, suddenly break loose and undo 5,000 actions. Um, follow your logic, please?
I've explained it already on the JIRA. If 5,000 people who were closed would in fact all re-open under my system by not expressing consent, then....that means they were closed wrongfully and are rightly rebelling. Not 5, not 50, but 5,000. That's why I'm saying those closed under the existing system -- if they were to become the problem you imagine and clutter up the JIRA needlessly -- would have to be people closed against their will, who will now rise up and open their issues.
But...in reality 90 percent or more of the people will agree, once explain with logic and coherence. They will no live to clutter up the JIRA. Their consent to closure will in fact bolster the democratic legitimacy -- and scientific legitimacy of this project.
>... Oh ... while we're here, can I suggest your need to have these obscure rambling paragraphs, often with only one full stop, suggests that you are unconsciously doing something too, and could you sit and contemplate it please? [I feel better now we've traded bizarre psychological assessments of each other].
Sure, um, I can contemplate that I'm writing a compelling and difficult argument. What are you doing? Spouting rhetoric you read out of a textbook?
>Oh no hang on. I contemplated just enough! I recall something about: issues should be closed only with the consent of the original reporter. In which case, I was simply suggesting that process would significantly slow down closing issues by the need for exchange of request, consent, then action of closing an item.
Right. Ok. I've thought about all that fear and lack of knowledge stuff. Nope. Doesn't apply. Sorry.
Then...uh...why are there 5,000? If no fear? No lack of knowledge? If there are 5,000 compelling arguments to close? Why the FUD, Fluf? It's just a toggle. It won't lead to the fall of Linden Lab.
>Hey cool. Thanks for this one... Then you state that there are far far less open items and it's because people gave up or didn't understand. You then call that unscientific.
No, I said that if you give everyone consent, they will in fact consent to most closures, and that helps add legitimacy AND creates a check and balance against voluntarism. And that's a good thing.
Um, apparently you are wilfully misunderstanding this, or perhaps it's too complex for you.
>Well. OK. To take a scientific perspective. How do you know that to be true? What stats do you have that would help validate that claim? What method of finding that out could you use, that I could then re-use to validate your findings?
Well, uh, I don't have to look far. You claim there's no need at all to have a consent toggle because there's all these righteous "good citizens" properly closing issues, and in those tiny, tiny percentage of cases where they mess up, why other good citizens or the OP open it up again, everybody explains it, and then it is resolved as happily as the Brady Bunch.
Soooooooo....that means, that if there is this love all around on the JIRA, why fear consent? Everyone will just consent, right? And if they don't, why, other good citizens will explain, right? Or they will time out. Sooooooooo...what are you afraid of?
>Duplications. you want me to email someone a suggested link in the hope they might read it and respond someday that "yes" or "no" that sounds like a good idea?
Uh, no, actually, the system itself has a handy thingie where you can post at the very top of the JIRA a link to that duplicated issue, with the helpful phrase "duplicates X, Y, Z". Sooooo use that! No need for emails! And the er, wisdom of the crowd will surely prevail, eh?
>So then I can go ahead and link it? Time Prokofy! Time is your enemy here, not some bias on which issues should be linked as a duplicate! Besides, by the very act of linking you get a big "Comment" box to explain your link to the reporter and other readers. That's your email right there. The possibility they will come back and say "no hang on" and re-open it is them saying "no" to the email you wanted to send earlier.
No, it is a) forcing those who close issues to make their case better, to cease doing it so radically and with some blanket abandon, because they know they face some pushback b) allowing those who were closed to have the power of consent which is a very important check on abuse; and c) adding to the legitimacy of the JIRA, such as it is.
>What are you adding except delay?
Where's the delay? It's on a timer. And what do you fear? If issues aren't closed instantly by busybodies, who cares, except the busybodies?
Why do you see the JIRA as being a contest to close as many issues as the public will at large generates?!
>People who's proposals or bugs are closed DO have the right to edit. I said "Like a wiki, the JIRA is INTENDED to be editable". How clear cut can I get? I even went out on a limb and used caps!
Um, gosh, you can't distinguish between someone understanding something you say, but disagreeing with you, and them "not getting it".
As I already copiously explained, the Wiki is a poisoned well. It is riven with special interests, unaccountable anonymity, cliques, cults, etc. that make it a far more oppressive force than any encyclopedia editorial board.
>Why are you afraid of users oh sorry .. "citizens" editing your issues? I'm not!
I don't call them citizens. I'm not afraid of them editing; I do *oppose* their shutting down freedom of expression and ownership of content, which is what they are doing.
My parting remarks on going to start your own blog were in the hope that an intelligent user might think "we'll that's not going to work as a way of getting things noticed." Or in some cases, current blog maintainers might be better off airing certain grievances back on their own blog.
These issues can't be decided on blogs though, because we don't have a Feature Voter that links to discussions as we used to, encouraging that concept; and even encouraging first an airing of a draft on a forum instead of immediately posting the proposal. Instead, what we have is the oppressive JIRA where the few decide for the many.
>I sometimes make such crass remarks at the ends of posts and must stop it. I forget irony doesn't work well on the web sometimes.
If you were smarter, it might be a more interesting discussion. You aren't.
>Well no. Lets not "posit" it shall we? It's fundamentally flawed in so many ways! Take it back to basics and start again shall we? The original description:
Your tendentious reading, not mine.
"A frequent practice by a tiny group of coders who spend a great deal of time on the JIRA is to unilaterally and arbitrarily close any issue they do not agree with, or move issues that they perceive as needing to be conflated with other issues.
The JIRA should be set up with a mechanism so that no issue can be closed or moved without the author's consent."
>1 - You believe it to be "A frequent practice" many others do not.
I'm the third one to mount this proposal. It happened to me personally in the space of only 3 proposals for no sound reason. I began to see all over, in the entire list of "resolved" issues, that there was a real problem.
And like all cults, I see that the worst violence is done not to outsiders, but to each other -- these types are the harshest on "their own kind who tolerate this abuse to keep the whole sick thing going.
>2 - I strongly doubt that the LL coders themselves spend much time on here at all. They should be looking at the LL internal JIRA instead. You may be referring to active contributors, which are citizens or users to you or me.
I'm sure the Lindens are basically supremely indifferent to this entire exercise. Rob Linden is not a coder per say, do you realize that? He himself will explain that. He is someone with some background who has mainly been hired to "manage" the open-source community. So he's more like a product manager, not a coder -- he's managing the product called "Let's give the OS kiddies a chance to feel wanted and maybe extract some good out of their free labour".
>3 - Not many Linden's spend enough time in here (in my opinion). Not through any particular fault. Perhaps simply because it's a bigger more sprawling thing than perhaps they expected, perhaps because they are too busy dealing with the problems they have already.
Well, sure. Because it's merely a new game instance, with a new boss, and new quests, and new aggro. That's all.
>4 - It's only unilateral until the reporter or someone else decides it needs re-opening or moving back. So it's not technically unilateral at all since both sides can comment.
Much of the time, premature closure should be avoided in favour of actual discussion.
You might also solve the problem of abuse by having a 7-day timer against closures. All proposals have time to collect votes and make their argument before the code-kiddies close them.
>5 - I'm stunned to think these actions might be "at random" (arbitrarily) carried out. Who in their right mind logs in to the JIRA for a fun filled hour of closing random items???
Uh, the lifers who congregate on there? Look at the amazing number of things found as duplicated, declared misfiled, moved, edited, changed, closed. It's obsessive, assiduous labour by the compulsive.
>Besides, your use of this word undermines all your further mentions of bias in following comments.
You're speaking nonsense here, it doesn't relate to any previous point.
>6 - I do not believe your basic notion of not being able to close issues without the reporters consent is practical or required.
Right, so we got that. And that's why we need to resist people like you would allow only a tiny cabal of coders to run everything. Oh, I guess that's what my JIRA 382 is all about then, right.
Posted by: Prokofy Neva | 12/02/2007 at 08:28 PM