On 2016-04-01 11:32 AM, Gijs Kruitbosch wrote:
On 01/04/2016 16:16, Andrew McCreight wrote:
The drawback of indicating priorities in this way is that it is totally
opaque to anybody who is not on that particular subteam, let alone
somebody
who is using Bugzilla for the first time to report breakage on a site
they
use. If this was marked "backlog" or whatever instead of "P5", and there
was a link to an explanation of what "backlog" meant, then it would
make it
much easier for people to figure out what is going on in any bug. I
think
that is a big advantage of the proposed triaging system, even though I
think it is reasonable for anybody to be skeptical of adding even more
bells and whistles to the Bugzilla interface.
Concur. Slight (related) aside: I've seen plenty of new bugreporters
set priority to P5 and severity to critical - clearly, the highest
number is the highest priority, right? In other words, I don't know
that P1 being highest-prio is necessarily obvious to everyone.
That, I suspect, is just a taste of the hidden costs of having different
"bugzilla-dialects" across the entire organization.
Programmatically making a non-trivial assertion about the state of a
single bug is really difficult now, so automating or dashboarding
anything is always a per-team one-off throwaway. It's difficult to get
aggregated information to managers, adds a bunch of friction between
collaborating teams and increases the risk of human error.
Not to mention, it's a real barrier to participation. I'm invested in
this because I want to make it easier for our community members to get
involved productively. I'm convinced that the same standard
nomenclature that will make it easier for new, non-English-native
participants to work in Bugzilla effectively will also make it easier
for everyone at a manager level or higher to communicate and coordinate
efforts.
- mhoye
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
