Hi Joel, all
jmadero wrote > On 04/21/2013 10:45 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: >> this text IMHO is much too elaborated and prim, please do not use it. > > After long discussions and email threads it seems like *most* people > agree that NEEDINFO should be a temporary status > > Users have some responsibility to help us help them ;) I agree with the three sentences above :) Your nice message has too much information ;) And I agree that 6 months (plus 1 month) is more than enough time to wait for further details. Emptying the queue from the QA side is stimulating for both QA and users (they see something is being done). It should also be stimulating for developers who can see the list of things to-do growing shorter instead of being a never ending, always increasing huge list of items to be solved... Just my 2 or 3 cents ;) -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Libreoffice-qa-New-text-for-NEEDINFO-Changes-tp4051386p4051433.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/
