On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Milan Sreckovic <msrecko...@mozilla.com> wrote:
> I’m going to start and keep arguing that we do not want to have an > explicit name for that largest bucket of “wishlist” bugs, and should > instead have it marked by the absence of a tag. What distinguishes a bug that has not been triaged from a bug that has been triaged and (mentally?) put into the third bucket if there's no explicit marker? This is about people that are reporting their first bugs, that are > occasionally involved, who are vital to our success. If I was one of > those, and I started seeing that most, if not all, of my bugs are marked as > wishlist or deferred or in-copious-spare-time, I’m going to get discouraged > and stop doing it. After all, I don’t seem to be valuably contributing, > because I’m just telling you things you don’t care about. Or, I could > start arguing in the bug, that this should be higher priority, and fill up > the comments with non-technical information. > We get that now, with no marker at all. The only real difference I see with a marker is that people will catch on sooner whereas now it takes a while until they realize they are being ignored. They eventually get discouraged or upset either way. Might even be better with a marker (for some people) because at least they have some acknowledgement that someone has looked at the bug even if they disagree about the importance. We may have misunderstood, and thus mis-triaged, the bug and an explicit marker might trigger the attempt to clarify sooner. The people who are going to demand attention for their super important critical blocker bug are likely to do that either way. A triage marker might help lance the boil sooner rather than let frustration build up to explosive levels. - Dan Veditz _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
