Wedge

That's not entirely unfair to the team. There are changes in 2.1 that are direct consequences of 2.0 mentality and structure, and while they're an improvement, they don't really go far enough. For example, in 2.1 they AJAXified the Core Features page. It's a ton better than it was before, it even looks nicer, but it doesn't change the stance I have that the entire design of that page is flawed; it shouldn't even exist (and it doesn't in Wedge)They made some amends to that in 2.0 RC4 with an improved hook system (SMF had hooks of a primitive nature for years), but it lacked the single biggest improvement: ability to load files in line. I always wondered how much of a cue they took from SimpleDesk about this because months before 2.0 RC4, SimpleDesk gained a plugin ability through hooks and so on, with a crude plugin manager, but even then I was very clear about the functionality that should be available through hooks - and that even predates Wedge!

But they never took it far enough in 2.0, 2.1 is better but they're too convinced of the importance of having file edits. The choice for me to disallow file edits was not entirely just a 'we're better than you because we don't need this', there is a whole host of related consequences (relatively safe plugin disabling, file permissions/FTP for uploading)Yup, that's one of the frustrations.I agree, but almost certainly for different reasons.And that's the thing. We have taken the mature core in SMF and revamped what we thought needed revamping - which isn't 'everything'. Yes, there's been some huge changes, even down to rewriting the ban system for example, but there's a lot of things that have remained essentially untouched.That's a valid point of view. And no, it isn't kiss-assery, it's a valid point of view - but with respect comes great responsibility: to be prepared to say what you don't like about it and what you would like to see done with it. One of the big aspects of feedback that we're lacking all around, really, is people not coming forward (out of those who have access) to say what's wrong with things.

For example, I got into a vB 3 review in the last week and out of it we had some interesting feedback with respect to the moderation centre. It's pretty much the first time in 2 1/2 years that anyone's really outlined that there are problems with it, that it isn't just me who feels that way.

Do you mind expounding on that?

Oh, and from a "negative criticism" point of view, I just got a position with HP as Project Quality Officer Auditor :) So, I'll have no issues giving feedback of any sort ;)

There are a number of nasty consequences that result out of the file editing - aside from stability with mod upgrades, the amount of support requests involving botched mod installations, as well as almost every 'I've been hacked' help request is a result of conditions arising out of the package manager.

However, even that's not really my issue. There is a larger issue at stake that some of those in the 'inner circle' are discouraging changes to these facilities and not really encouraging new blood to adopt better practices. All the time there are file edits, people are going to take them because they're easier. There is a very large culture of it being what the old guard want.

Yeah, that's a lot of what I see in the world I work now as an HP quality auditor hired for Fannie Mae Project Quality Office, "Well we always did it that way..." despite the obvious assessment that they are at a very low maturity model from a corporate standpoint, and they hired us to keep them in line in the first place...