On Monday, 4 January 2021 at 15:25:13 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 29 December 2020 at 19:59:56 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
1. acknowledgment of the issue
2. acknowledgment of what the issue leads to in terms of
inconvenience
3. a forward looking vision for future improvements
Your two #1 points aren't the same -
understanding/acknowledging the issue. I think I could have
done more to acknowledge it now that you brought it up.
In this case, maybe #1 and #2 are the same. But sometimes people
will complain about the "inconvenience" and not drill it down to
the real cause in terms of language-mechanics.
A valid response could be "I will look and see if I can find the
source of this problem, but I totally see the inconvenience you
are experiencing. We will look at this more closely when planning
for release X.Y.Z where we do an overhaul of subsystem Q.".
I don't think a process oriented response has to be more concrete
than that?
