"Upcoming Reapprovals" on /teams importance?

[Dave Walker]

"Upcoming Reapprovals" link to /teams/reapprovals has an important place on the page (directly under page title). I am not convinced this is the best location for this OR if the link even needs to be on the page at all. I'm not sure it is that relevant to the majority of the target audience.

Decision: move reapproval link to the bottom of the team list page.

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

Can you suggest a better place?

[Chris Johnston (cjohnston)]

I would say either at the bottom or the list of links in the top right.

On Mar 18, 2010, at 4:23, Daniel Holbach <email address hidden>
wrote:

> Can you suggest a better place?
>
> ** Changed in: loco-directory
> Importance: Undecided => Low
>
> ** Changed in: loco-directory
> Status: New => Triaged
>
> ** Tags added: needs-decision ui
>
> --
> "Upcoming Reapprovals" on /teams importance?
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/539449
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to loco-
> directory.
>
> Status in LoCo Directory: Triaged
>
> Bug description:
> "Upcoming Reapprovals" link to /teams/reapprovals has an important
> place on the page (directly under page title). I am not convinced
> this is the best location for this OR if the link even needs to be
> on the page at all. I'm not sure it is that relevant to the
> majority of the target audience.
>
>

[Dave Walker (davewalker)]

Who actually has an interest in "Upcoming Reapprovals"? It might just be cleaner to keep the page valid, but drop the URL altogether. However, if it should be kept - i would suggest at the bottom.

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

The LoCo Council definitely does. :-)

[Chris Johnston (cjohnston)]

Should it be at the bottom of the same page or the bottom of all pages?

On Mar 18, 2010, at 9:30, Daniel Holbach <email address hidden>
wrote:

> The LoCo Council definitely does. :-)
>
> --
> "Upcoming Reapprovals" on /teams importance?
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/539449
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to loco-
> directory.
>
> Status in LoCo Directory: Triaged
>
> Bug description:
> "Upcoming Reapprovals" link to /teams/reapprovals has an important
> place on the page (directly under page title). I am not convinced
> this is the best location for this OR if the link even needs to be
> on the page at all. I'm not sure it is that relevant to the
> majority of the target audience.
>
>

[Dave Walker (davewalker)]

@Daniel , Agreed - but do they need a a link to it, or can they just remember the URL.. Or we could add, "If lococouncil: "<href>/reapprovals "... etc

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

I'll let the LC decide that. I agree that it's prominent, but I personally don't see why it should be removed entirely - it might interesting for others too.

[Michael Hall (mhall119)]

I think at the bottom of the Teams list would be the best place for it.

[Laura Czajkowski (czajkowski)]

I've assigned it to the LoCo council, at present we've just taken 30 teams for this cycle, moving forward I'm sure it would be more ideal to have some sort of time line of approved LoCo sorted by date of approved or Alphabetical.

[Chris Crisafulli (itnet7)]

I just had a chance to take a good look at this. Since we are discussing the future of the link that is currently "Upcoming Reapprovals" (pointing to http://loco.ubuntu.com/teams/reapprovals ), I think we could make it more useful and less obtrusive to anonymous users.

If I had my choice I would do two things, one with the location and one to increase the usefulness of the link.

1. I would move that current link to the bottom of the Team page and make it only visible when someone has been logged into the LD. We could also change the wording that is present to say something like: "Would you like to see the team expiration dates?"

2. I dig Daviey's suggestion with one slight variation:

we could add, "If lococouncil: "<href>/upcoming_reapprovals "... etc

It would even be more useful if this new hyperlink could be filtered to show expirations that are within 6 months or less of expiring.

Any thoughts?

[Laura Czajkowski (czajkowski)]

+1 It would even be more useful if this new hyperlink could be filtered to show expirations that are within 6 months or less of expiring.

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

Can we make the 6 months thing a separate bug?

[Daniel Holbach (dholbach)]

I filed bug 544893 for the other thing.