Alexander Thurgood wrote > - it assumes that casual users/reporters are heavily implicated in the > project, or at least enough to defend their bug report tooth and nail;
I don't agree with your interpretation. I believe that someone who bothers to register to bugzilla and to submit a bug report to such an unfriendly interface is indeed interested in reporting and expects that the problem is solved. The problem here is that there are simply not enough people triaging the bugs or fixing them (for a software reportedly used by "60 million users" the number of people contributing is appallingly low...) Sometimes it takes so long for the reports to move from UNCONFIRMED to NEW or NEEDINFO (months sometimes...) and even more for a developer to pick it up (some have been in NEW state for years!!!) that the reporter either found a workaround or gave up on LibreOffice completely So if people do not respond to the feedback request it is because they have lost interest or moved on. If the information in bugzilla is not enough to verify/replicate the bug then it doesn't make sense to keep it. I vote for the 3 strike method previously suggested. 1 month interval between warnings (to make sure that people don't answer because they are on vacation, etc) This is my opinion as an occasional collaborator ;) Cheers, Pedro -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-Stagnant-NEEDINFO-bugs-tp4032113p4034827.html Sent from the QA mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
