Timeline for Introducing the Developer Story
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 5, 2016 at 20:14 | comment | added | Shog9 | If it was fixed, we'd be telling you to go try it out, @meagar. Right now, it's a designer mock-up; until a few days ago, all the entries in that screenshot read, "lorem ipsum". No matter how convinced we might be that it's the cat's pajamas, we're nowhere near confident enough to actually build it without talking to folks here first; all feedback is welcome, and we'll try to make wise decisions based on what y'all tell us - doesn't mean we won't try something new, but a good argument in favor of doing something else is always worthwhile. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 19:49 | comment | added | JonH | @meagar - I'm not sure what industry you work in, but when it comes to stuff like this its an endless cycle. There is no final form of anything IT related. Of course Developer Stories is coming, but that doesn't mean it will be perfect. It's the first beta phase of it. Nothing is pretty fixed, just because of the screen captures doesn't mean its 100% complete. Remember the post on job unificintegration or whatever the heck it was. After that post was made I filled over 100 bugs / feature requests..that too had screen shots. That simply doesn't mean it was fully done bug free... | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 19:47 | comment | added | user229044 Mod | @Shog9 Well then... is the intent here to suggest Developer Stories as a proposed feature, and gather feedback? Or is it to announce to the community that Developer Stories is coming? You're making it sound now like the final form is unclear and still subject to big changes, while the original post and mockup seems to indicate that the form is pretty fixed. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 19:23 | comment | added | Shog9 | Not particularly, @meagar - that was the point of the integration "hack" put in place a couple weeks ago. You can see what a slavish port would look like (more or less) right now; the fact that it's running separately under the hood is hidden well enough to get the idea. Now... It's absolutely legitimate to look at that & say, "I like this better than what's being proposed to replace it". Sooner or later, we will re-write CVs, and the more feedback we get now the easier it'll be to decide what that ends up looking like. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 19:23 | comment | added | user229044 Mod | @Shog9 I mean, once you have more users + more feedback coming out of an integrated CV system, you could use all that feedback to make a case for or against transitioning to something like Dev Stories. I don't know, maybe you guys have done a ton of user testing and there are solid reasons to think Dev Stories is the right direction for the product? But most of what have been presented is the argument that "integration is good, therefore we propose developer stories", which is a bit of a non-sequitur. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 19:20 | comment | added | user229044 Mod | @Shog9 I think part of the problem is that arguments for integration are being presented as arguments for Developer Stories, as though the only form an integrated CVs product could take is that of Developer Stories. Nobody (well, at least not me) is arguing against integrating the two systems; I just fail to see why the necessary solution to "integrating CVs" is being presented as Developer Stories. Yes, more users + more feedback is great, but... doesn't it make sense to get more users + more feedback on the existing system, by slavishly porting the status quo? | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 18:56 | comment | added | Shog9 | You're right, there isn't @meagar. On the other hand, if we're gonna invest the resources in porting it, shouldn't we try & get something extra out of it? AFAIK, the idea here was to try & make the CV feature a bit more of a multitasker - something that could still benefit folks who aren't into Careers / Jobs. The more people it benefits, the more worthwhile the investment in developer time. And the more people who use it, the more feedback we get and the better we can make it - which you may have noticed was sort of a big pain-point for Careers features in the past. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 18:52 | comment | added | user229044 Mod | @Shog9 That's fine, but there is no reason that porting the feature to a new system necessitates completely redesigning that feature. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 18:05 | comment | added | JonH | @WayneConrad - No grandmas, including mine were affected by anything I said. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 18:04 | comment | added | Wayne Conrad | Downvoted for the "you sound like my grandma..." quip. It is quite disrespectful, both to those engaged in this discussion, and to grandmas. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 17:42 | comment | added | Shog9 | This actually is part of Integration, @meagar... Weird though that probably seems. Right now, things like CVs are just the output of old Careers code piped through an infernal machine; the long-term goal is to actually integrate the code as well as the UI (so that it isn't so foreign and out of place, and also so we're not maintaining so much duplicate stuff). This is the first step. The design may be a little bit ambitious, but hey - better to aim high & scale back as needed than slavishly copy the boring status quo and get nothing tangible for the effort. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 17:17 | comment | added | JonH | My example, was just that an example. When someone gives you an example, they don't say 100% will benefit, they give you an example. Whether you like it or not is just that you no one else. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 17:12 | comment | added | user229044 Mod | Your argument that we should just "accept change" is based on your belief that one specific change (careers unification) was responsible for one specific good thing happening (your friend getting a job)? It's a pretty tenuous connection to say we should just "accept change and give it a chance" based on one experience with an unrelated change. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 16:56 | comment | added | JonH | No it means to accept change and give it a chance. I know where I am posting. Its clearly related to my post. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 16:55 | comment | added | user229044 Mod | We're not talking about the careers/SO unification. This isn't that. All your points in favor of Developer Stories are really points in favor of the careers unification which is a separate issue altogether. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 16:55 | comment | added | JonH | If stating your rants are similiar to when we upgraded my grandma is offensive I don't know what world you are in. Relax, take a chill pill, life will turn whether you like it or not. Give me a break. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 16:54 | comment | added | JonH | @meagar - because about 3-4 weeks ago I couldn't say the same thing as careers was seperate from SO. He didn't even know careers existed nor did he have any inclination to look for it. When it was integrated within SO is when he got his golden ticket. I use this as an example to what could happen with the feature of the developer story. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 16:52 | comment | added | user229044 Mod | Your "Before you bash..." is, if anything, a defence of the current system. Why change something that clearly worked very well for your coworker? And your "grandma" statement is just offensive. We are not luddites because we want to be told why radical changes are being made to existing systems that people are successfully using. | |
| Jan 5, 2016 at 16:48 | history | answered | JonH | CC BY-SA 3.0 |