[':::James, I think you that you are underestimating the  problem you are going to get into with regression against stable releases, and also against the problem of defining minimum feature sets. The biggest problem you face is that you are a \'\'long\'\' way from the minimum feature set, which includes full table editing capability, cutting-and-pasting both inside one VE window and between VE windows, good solid reference/citation wizards, and probably a retool of how Parsoid and VE deal with templates that don\'t meet your current definitions of being well-behaved. That combination of features is \'\'substantial\'\', and runs the risk of having functional regressions while you try to move forward. If you attempt to address that with the multiple release/week cycle you are going to have to go through, you are going to have a horrible time pinning down when and where fixing one bug caused you to regress on another. There\'s a time and a place for Agile-style methodologies and a time and a place for things closer to a waterfall methodology. Competing with a fully functional editor is one of those places where Agile methodologies have difficulties. The problem here is that you aren\'t really fixing a \'\'problem\'\': there\'s nothing about VE that makes the average Wikipedia user \'\'need\'\' to use it, and because we don\'t need it, we are pretty intolerant of bugs and poor performance. The whole "develop part, see how it flies, develop some more, see how it flies" stuff doesn\'t work so well when the user can just go next door and use a complete solution.\n', ":::Another key thing to note is that the changes you are discussing only apply to people that choose to turn this ''on''. Note that consensus so far in this RFC is ''strong'': not only are you expected to turn this off for new users, you are expected to go through and disable VE for ''everyone''. ''Everyone''. After doing that, only people that think you have something worth using and testing will turn it on. It's your obligation to have something worth using and testing, not our obligation to test and use software that doesn't give us benefits. That's where the decision you made to make something the default editor when it fell so short of the minimum expected feature set is going to hurt you, and I can't deny it will be painful. It's pain you brought on yourself, however, by ignoring everyone when we kept begging you to slow down.\n", ':::You have developed a fan-base though: people that saw VE and think it\'s worthwhile. Hell, \'\'I\'\' think it\'s probably worthwhile. People are still willing to help test if you ask nicely. Maybe not as fast and furious as this, but I would happily run template, citation, and table editors through their paces and let you know how they went. Other people have fetishes about typography management, and you haven\'t even begun to address their needs (if you can call anything that involves counting the pixels in the width of a horizontal line a "need"). There\'s a substantial group of people that pretty much fix typos and formatting that seem happy with VE as it stands and will give it a constant basic functionality check.\n', ":::What you need to understand and internalize is that Wikipedia itself is amazing: a distributed, collaborative work with an enormous pool of collaborators that actually maintains a fairly cohesive style and voice despite the fact that most of us have never met. The tools we have built up for using the existing software have helped us accomplish that, and we need to see how new tools are going to enter into our workflow before they will be embraced. Right now, the released Visual Editor basically supports a substandard junior class of editor that will never be able to compete with people using the older tools. That's not good for the junior editor, not good for the older editors, and doesn't reflect well on the tool the junior editor is using.\n", ":::No one is asking you to go completely away. What we ''are'' asking is for you to not be quite so much in our face. Not to belittle the tools we use, disparage our opinions, and try to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback&diff=prev&oldid=563853529 pin the blame for UI deficiencies on editors]. To recognize that VE is not ''better'' than our existing tool-chain, it just appeals to a different class of user. You've got a lot of expertise to draw on here. You've got free access to the opinions of software designers ranging from self-taught script kiddies to old guys like me (over 30 years of software engineering, including software developments where we wrote 2 million lines of code by ourselves, compiled them on compilers that we wrote ourselves, ran them on hardware platforms that we developed ourselves and debugged them with in-circuit emulators that we designed and developed ourselves). It would be a lot better if we all felt like you listened to us.&mdash;[[User:Kww|Kww]]([[User talk:Kww|talk]]) 05:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)\n"]