Has a time limit been set yet for responses to issues labelled “Staff Support needed”?
Hey @chrisglasier there’s no set time limit and their difficult to enforce since everyone is participating voluntarily, and some issues staff may have an easier time helping out with than others.
If you’re noticing these are going a long time without staff support options are 1) Pinging staff by name (you can find some active staff in comments) 2) Bring it to the monthly meetings 3) Ask on Telegram or here for a specific kind of support or help getting connected with a specific staff member and we’ll try and connect you!
What made me ask the question was the @CaptainCalliope comment here, specifically:
… I think your vision certainly relevant to the long-term goals of this initiative… but bureaucracy unfortunately wins here in the sense that there isn’t any bureaucracy that would enable getting resources for such a project in the near-term.
So I proposed what I thought a more palatable step by step approach to a bureaucracy (and with it the notion of accountability). I believe at least the basic concept of automating mainstream work needs to be formally accepted by Mozilla before anyone in Community Design would be really willing/able to participate voluntarily. After that I hope many will enjoy exploring a new use for the Web.
Perhaps you could have another look at the issue (I have added some more explanations) and let me know if I need do better.
Hey @chrisglasier,
I’ve looked through your GitHub issue and unfortunately I’m really struggling to understand what the project you want to do, or would like Mozilla to do is.
It sounds like you’d like Mozilla to do “the same kind of initial research banks required prior to considering the introduction of eBanking.”
Is this something that you want Mozilla to implement? If so, in what capacity?
It seems like you’ve put a lot of thought into this so I’d love to understand more.
Thanks!
Lucy
@lucyeoh It did not start out like this but the project I wish to hand over to Mozilla I think would now be described as a web-based scheme for individuals in different industries to create apps.
As information is so complex and diverse, these individuals need a standard machine-like interface to assemble what aspects of what needs analysing to achieve specific outcomes. For example, to find the best deal for a hotel booking, location, star rating, room type, price, availability and view are current options, but to arrive at a design for creating the same guestroom was far more complex, not only involving the same aspects but also building product selection, physical relationships, regulations, budgets, timing and other design criteria.
As much of mainstream work involves setting or retrieving values of selected aspects, the names of the aspects provide the key to finding appropriate open source code modules to manage values and optionally generate related multimedia.
In simple terms it is about a new type of machine, a new way to document mainstream work and opening up significantly more new areas of human activity for the IT sector to automate. (screen shots and video ).
It seemed to me that when considering something like this, a bureaucracy first needs some research into its credibility before committing resources to really get it going. I am sure this was true before the introduction of eBanking, personal computing or WWW itself. As the project is about both open source information and code I think assessment really should be from more than one perspective, so I set up the GitHub issue with the idea of being grilled by a working party. I am happy to change tack; please advise.