[tei-council] Taking on Sourceforge tickets

Martin Holmes mholmes at uvic.ca
Wed Aug 17 11:33:42 EDT 2011

I think:

1. Submitting tickets is good.

2. Implementing changes is good.

3. If you're not comfortable (yet) implementing changes, then submitting 
tickets is still a worthy contribution to the process.

4. Even if you feel confident you can implement a fix that you've 
identified, it's still good practice to submit a ticket, invite comment, 
and wait a little while before implementing the fix (unless it's truly 
trivial, such as a spelling mistake).

My 2 cents.

Thanks for the meeting this morning and the clarification from Lou and 
Laurent. I'm still concerned, but at least I'm not so puzzled any more.


On 11-08-17 07:55 AM, Brett Barney wrote:
> All,
> Most of you will probably want to skip this, as it's mostly addressed to
> Lou and boils down to a plea for tutoring, but I decided to write to the
> list because it's a reaction to something that came up during the call just
> a minute ago and because it's possible that others besides Lou will have
> and be willing to share helpful pointers.
> I want to start by publicly copping to being the person (or at least one of
> the persons) who submitted a bunch of "easy" tickets w/o fixing them
> myself. I am honestly sorry both for having given Lou more work to do and
> for just being annoying. It's now clear to me now that I've been operating
> under a false sense that I had a reasonably good understanding of how the
> Sourceforge ticket system is supposed to work. My submitting Sourceforge
> tickets at all owes to the fact that Lou explained to me, after I pointed
> out a problem with the guidelines in a public talk, that the proper way to
> address such things was to submit a Sourceforge ticket. That was the first
> I had ever even heard of TEI on Sourceforge. And I know it's probably
> surprising, but even after the wonderfully clear and detailed discussion of
> how to make changes it wasn't clear to me that I had license to just plow
> ahead. Is it by virtue of my Council membership that I'm being allowed to
> unilaterally decide what's a non-controversial change and implement it? If
> so, I guess I can get my mind around that idea, but it had just never
> occurred to me, frankly. Is that something that I should have recalled in a
> description of my responsibilities? It did cross my mind as I was filling
> out the ticket that it would just be less hassle for everybody if I quietly
> went in and made the changes, but I didn't seriously consider doing it,
> since I'm not an editor (nor a member of the "editorial board"). Is it
> perhaps the case that the Council as a body has now assumed the duties of
> the editorial board, which as I understand it is no longer being funded? I
> suspect that the Sourcefourge framework, especially that "Assignee" column,
> implied something more . . . formal. I suspect that another part of my lack
> of vision is cultural: Votes of confidence or no confidence are pretty
> foreign to US politics, but we *are* big on "checks and balances." So
> people aren't generally allowed both to decide what the law should be AND
> enforce it.
> None of that was intended as complaint. I'm actually just embarrassed and
> frustrated that I'm still not doing the right thing. Would you mind just
> quickly explaining what sort of thought process I should be using as I look
> through the tickets trying to lighten Lou's burden?
> Thanks,
> Brett
> _______________________________________________
> tei-council mailing list
> tei-council at lists.village.Virginia.EDU
> http://lists.village.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/tei-council
> PLEASE NOTE: postings to this list are publicly archived
> .

Martin Holmes
University of Victoria Humanities Computing and Media Centre
(mholmes at uvic.ca)

More information about the tei-council mailing list