['\n', '::The problem is that well-established and proven methods of managing this kind of project, including when and how to test it, and when and how to roll it out, have apparently not been followed completely. Thus we have a buggy editor released that cannot do many of the tasks people would want it to do (this highlights a lack of proper prior research about users\' needs), and a set of loaded questions that form this RFC produced that seem to pre-suppose that this editor will be kept and firmly introduced, almost in its present state, to beginners and anonymous editors when it is still announced to be "beta software". I quite agree with what various users have said, both on this talk page and on the main RFC page for these discussions, but I am dismayed at the dismissive reaction that mean many of our valid criticism of the faults of the software, and the apparent flaws in the process of managing this entire project are ignored. Iin one of my cases, a reply to some serious suggestions for improvement was used merely as an attack on my own personal integrity, so that I ended up being called unduly negative and denigrating. This seems to be a case of attention being given too much to the presentation of some new software and its praise, rather than a critical examination and frank appraisal of its content and actual process of development. At least, I would have hoped that the project team would have looked at the various wikipedia articles on software management and introduction, and then I hope they would at least have been able to give rational reasons why the well-accepted processes seem to not have been used here. Similarly, I would have expected some justification of the elementary mistakes made in asking such loaded questions in this RFC to be justified in a similar way (I have taught, advised and evaluated survey design and questionnaire design for over 30 years, so I do know about this issue in great detail.) Unfortunately, all we have are attempts to be dismissive of criticisms and attacks by others, which in other contexts would seem like defensiveness in the knowledge of problems that need to be covered up. I hope to be proved wrong here, but I would like to see some hard and definitive answers to these problems that have been raised by an official team-leader of this piece of software and project. It could have been done a lot better with some elementary knowledge unless special factors are present, and it would be good to know just what these factors could have been (if there are any), and how they were evaluated to be so important that this apparently flawed process was adopted and the well-established procedures not followed. [[User:ddstretch|<span style="border:1px solid DarkGreen; padding:1px;"><span style="color:White; background:DarkGreen; font-size:x-small;">&nbsp;DDStretch&nbsp;</span></span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:ddstretch|<span style="color:DarkGreen; font-size:x-small;">(talk)</span>]] 11:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)\n']