Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Old draft tasks: Difference between revisions
Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Old draft tasks (view source)
Revision as of 06:49, 25 December 2020
, 3 years agocomment
(Some specifics) |
(comment) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 22:
:::: Some draft tasks just have big problems. For example, [[Loading animated 3D data|this]] is a really tough one to do without a very specialized support library, and [[VList|this]] doesn't have a real implementation in any language (an interface spec is usually not a solution, and certainly isn't for a data structure task). OTOH, I added undone drafts to the template report of things not done for each language to make it easier for people to step up and provide implementations; that's generally the best way of helping a task make it to full task (even if in some cases that's not all that's required). –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 23:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
What if we were to add a 'custodian' role to draft tasks, where someone who sees a draft without a custodian can be the go-to guy for clarifying the task idea into something that can be implemented or built upon? Once the task graduates to full-task status, it falls under the more general behaviors we already have. As for things like [[VList]] and [[Loading animated 3D data]], perhaps those tasks should be modified such that they're more achievable or implementable. (VList might also include a "demonstrate its use" section, while the 3d animated data task might not be so specific to require the use of Smil and X3D, but go on to show how to proceed along the individual model "frames") --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 01:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:Isn't the initial 'custodian' the person who starts the task? I think it is good that people that have good ideas for tasks, but who do not have English as a first language, have asked for help with their task and recieved it. But what about the tasks for which the people who might have helped, feel reticent for some reason? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:: Yes. As things stand, the custodian for a new task is whoever created it. However, the task creator doesn't always stick around (The majority of entries currently in [[Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Suggest a programming task]]) or check back (see the mess that caused in [[Multisplit]]). By making explicit who the 'custodian' is, we have the ability to allow transfer of ownership in case a task author/originator has moved on. With transfer of ownership comes the ability to take something that hasn't been built upon, and reshape it so that it can be built. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:Don't we want tasks in which the original creator had to put in the initial effort to see it through any initial doldrums? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:: Yes. And this wouldn't prevent that. The best tasks on the site have tended to be those which someone sat through and was available as they evolved. However, not everybody has the skills to take a task idea and put it into enough human words to be clear and task-like. (I personally know people who've chosen not to create tasks not because they wouldn't like to, but because they don't think they're allowed, but because they don't believe they can put their idea clearly into task form) Not everybody has the skills to actually know about what it is they'd like to see written as a task. (Such as when I asked for [[Levenshtein distance]], or, really, half the things I've put on [[Rosetta Code:Village Pump/Suggest a programming task]]; these are things I'd like to understand, but don't) A custodial system would let someone take an abandoned task suggestion, boil it down to find the interesting bits and build tasks out of those. If there was anything useful in the original idea, it isn't lost, but refined by someone with an interest in it. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
::: Perhaps it would be of use to identify people who might help shepherd a task through draft. If someone wants to create something but are less comfortable with the wordsmithing and definition, then identify mentors. A task mentor wanted page or something. That would give them someone to bounce ideas off and get the wrinkles out of before things get too loose. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 03:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: Might work. We'd want to clear out the existing 'suggest a task' page, and create a template for placing new ideas there. The template would need arguments for a short summary, long summary (including offsite references), and who's taken on the shepherd role. The template can even force-sign the submitter's username, to aid communication. It would probably link to a page titled after the short summary. where discussion can take place before a draft task page is created. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
::::: We'd need a way to connect up the submitter to the potential mentor. Maybe something on the user's page to link them and to state what they are interested in helping with. Maybe it could be a watched page and the mentors get notified. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 22:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
:Do we want to, in effect, move some of the list of suggested tasks into abandoned task pages with just as much information in them? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:: Actually, that's more or less what I'd like to see, with the caveat that we can identify when tasks are abandoned and have free license (in a social sense) to reformulate them into something more useful and/or interesting. The 'custodian' idea was intended as way of explicitly identifying who had that license, and as a way of clarifying whether or not a task is truly abandoned. (If a task transfers custodianship, then we can ask the new custodian. If the new custodian doesn't ceases to take interest in the task, then the custodianship can transfer again) --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
::: How about an <nowiki>{{abandoned task}}</nowiki> tag? It would facilitate changing draft task to abandoned task with an easy edit. Maybe even by a bot. It should also throw up a big warning box. --[[User:Dgamey|Dgamey]] 13:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: Sounds reasonable. I'd probably want to change the name to {{tmpl|unmaintained task}}, though. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 16:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:Is this a case where it would help if we got the thoughts of long-term members of much larger wiki's? (Is there a meta wiki wiki)?
:--[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 05:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:: I really don't know. I can think of arguments either way, as usual. However, I'll ping this page out on the twitter and Facebook accounts; we might conceivably get more input that way. Could also set up things like Doodle and Facebook polls. --[[User:Short Circuit|Michael Mol]] 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
::: Concerning people not adding solutions to ''draft tasks'': One reason (for newbies) is that they might not know about draft tasks; I know I didn't for some time. Another observation I've noticed is that, once a draft task becomes a (full) task, then people start to add solutions. Another reason is that (I for one) hate to spent time and effort in adding solutions to draft tasks and then have the draft task deleted without so much as a how-do-you-do. Another concern is that some tasks really push the practical limits of executing a computer program that runs a long time before results are generated (or found). Not everyone has a super-fast PC or a PC with a large amount of real storage. There hasn't been a large number of these, but they have been becoming more frequent. It used to be that these types of solutions were for "stretch goals", but they seem to have been more common as of late, and I don't like to implement a solution that doesn't meet the primary requirements (least it gets flagged as not meeting the task's requirements). The last time I discussed/talked about the difficulty in meeting a requirement (even after the author himself asked if the goal was a bridge-too-far), my thoughts on the matter were rebuked, so that approach didn't get very far. So I suggest, ask for achievable results such that it is solvable for almost any computer programming language. -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 20:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
:::: I've done a fair few draft tasks, but left others aside. From at least my personal experiences, some of the reasons people might not do draft tasks are:
::::* It's too difficult.
::::* It's written poorly and is hard to understand.
::::* It is too memory and/or time intensive to be worth the effort.
::::* It isn't interesting to me.
::::* The task itself is fine but the output formatting requirements are unnecessary and annoying.
::::* Any solution I could write would be too long.
:::: Of course, many of these issues apply to some actual tasks as well. But I think part of the reason draft tasks languish with draft status is the same as the reason we don't attempt the tasks they describe: we look at it, don't know what to do with it, and move on. And it doesn't help that a lot of the drafts were put here by one-time users who then never returned to curate them. [[User:Thebigh|Thebigh]] ([[User talk:Thebigh|talk]]) 06:49, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
| |||