________________________ @jdreimann - Twitter Sent from my phone
On 17 Jul 2012, at 13:44, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/17/2012 09:53 AM, Joachim Dreimann wrote: >> >> [..] What do you think? > > Well, I don't like distinguishing blockers and critical as being particularly > special. That's ok. I also didn't consider that these can be modified by users, which would make it unfeasible anyway. > I suggest that we consider the most important tickets to be members of the > top N priority levels represented in tickets of a given milestone. We could > then use the dates of milestones to determine which tickets are likely to be > more interesting (assuming that a ticket is not given its own due date > through a plugin.) > > For this to work at its best, milestones would have to have due dates but > this could be an incentive to set them. > > I understand that the selection of tickets we are discussing is distinct from > the list of tickets that are [assigned to|watched by] the user. We should > also consider whether these lists should be allowed to overlap. If we are > expecting users to discuss the list of tickets displayed with reference to a > dashboard view, it might be expected that certain lists would be identical > for the viewers. On the other hand, a ticket listed twice on a page seems a > bit silly so it would probably be helpful to instead provide the means for > the user to see the dashboard style views of a different user - probably with > redacted parts for where there is information that the viewing user does not > have the relevant permissions to view. I'm happy for them to overlap. It's unlikely that they will significantly anyway in a common setup considering the number of users it would have and assuming some division of the work. The discussion aspect is a good point I hadn't considered yet. When your priorities and the overall priorities overlap significantly that also provides helpful feedback which may trigger helpful conversations. - Joe
