Follow-up on the "the TAG is overloaded" point... if problems with a proposal can be caught by people other than the TAG before it gets to the TAG, that helps the TAG do its job better by improving its throughput and letting it focus on what other groups can't provide.
-
-
Replying to @fantasai @RickByers
Sure. And I don't think that the TAG review issues are reserved for TAG members. But because the TAG is overloaded, review latency can be high. So starting it early gives everyone enough time to look at it before the folks pushing the feature think it should actually ship
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I also don't understand the core argument here; is it *bad* to be seeking broad feedback? Is it bad to be building implementations to learn from and iterate on? Which part of this is mis-ordered?
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
And
@fantasai, understand that folks in this thread are Blink API OWNERS; it's our (part time) job to push back on folks who try to send an I2S that doesn't demonstrate real and thoughtful iteration and solicitation of feedback. Can reach out *directly* when that isn't happening1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
With my
TL hat on, we consciously pay a heavy tax over and above what you're accusing us of *specifically because we spend time soliciting and integrating the feedback some claim we're not asking for*.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
I could make my life, and the life of my team, much much easier if we did what you're accusing. But we don't. Our process is audaciously public and uncomfortably raw specifically to enable you to engage and collaborate should you care about the feature or space.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @yoavweiss and
Is there any other engine project that takes developer feedback from something like Origin Trials? That floats APIs *and then doesn't ship them* for lack of feedback or interest? That explicitly invokes the TAG or forces their team to work in public via incubation?
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @RickByers and
Please can you publish the user research you've done on this? The user needs analysis would be really helpful in evaluating whether something is actually useful for end users.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @edent @RickByers and
On our general process for deciding to ship features? We tend to do UXR for specific features (not general processes), and (as you know) that tends to implicate PII unless meticulously scrubbed.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
the Origin Trials framework intends to publish what it can from the surveys we conduct, but require large enough sample sizes to be psudonemous. Not all trials reach that level.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
But again, those trials are specific to a particular proposed feature, rather than the overall process.
-
-
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
I'd also like to note the counterfactual: traditional working groups do not solicit or require feedback outside the set of people who are members of a particular SDO. This process is casting the nest wider and requesting more input than traditional standards development ever did
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @slightlylate @edent and
So I hear you on research; we're working to move the entire platform to a more evidence-based approach, and it's worth asking how the detractors of these tools would prefer things be structured instead. Is the alternative conference-room "consensus" from a preordained clique?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
DMs open. Tweets my own; press@google.com for official comms.