Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
On 22 April 2013 19:15, Bjoern Michaelsen
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:57:32PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Kieran Peckett
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It has been 180 days (6 months) since we asked you for more information
> > > about this bug. We will be waiting for information a further 30 days (1
> > > month) before closing this bug.
> > >
> > > For more information, go to: [link goes here]
> >
> > The shorter the message, the more likely people are to read it :-)
>
> OTOH most of these bug have been idling a long time and the reporter will
> get
> it via email (you have to assume he is not one of us checking bz daily).
>
> A very short and strict message might thus be easily taken as offense
> ("first
> you do nothing for 6 months and then you threaten to close this with one
> casual
> sentence")
Workaround maybe: Reminder after 1/2 month/s, close after 6/7 months
(change either as appropriate) - maybe add another reminder at about 3-4
months? In a smaller Open Source project I work on, the reporter doesn't
always get the comment asking for info, and doesn't realise until we
invalidate the bug after 14 days, after which they respond, often
explaining that they didn't seem to get the email. I know this is quite a
large project, but is 7 months a bit long to wait, especially for some
questions like "Which version of LibreOffice are you using?" or "Which
Operating System are you using?" - would just bumping the topic after a
month or two of silence help?
> -- I like the cautious wording by Joel, personally -- it helps
> someone who is not a daily contributor(*) to get some context and makes
> clear its
> nothing personal or done out of disrespect.
>
> Again: You have to think of the message as an email, not as a bugzilla
> comment,
> because thats how the receiver sees it.
>
However, they will try to find the gist of the e-mail, and going too formal
like Joel's original text, can make the user less likely to read it, and
using technical terms like "NEEDINFO" can make it look, especially to the
less technically literate, that the e-mail is being aimed at other
developers.
>
> Best,
>
> Bjoern
>
>
> (*) if he were, his bug wouldnt be struck in NEEDINFO for 6 month ;)
>
Hope my comments help in this debate, rather than slowing the
implementation down.
Kieran
QA & Documentation volunteer
___
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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:57:32PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Kieran Peckett wrote:
> >
> > It has been 180 days (6 months) since we asked you for more information
> > about this bug. We will be waiting for information a further 30 days (1
> > month) before closing this bug.
> >
> > For more information, go to: [link goes here]
>
> The shorter the message, the more likely people are to read it :-)
OTOH most of these bug have been idling a long time and the reporter will get
it via email (you have to assume he is not one of us checking bz daily).
A very short and strict message might thus be easily taken as offense ("first
you do nothing for 6 months and then you threaten to close this with one casual
sentence") -- I like the cautious wording by Joel, personally -- it helps
someone who is not a daily contributor(*) to get some context and makes clear
its
nothing personal or done out of disrespect.
Again: You have to think of the message as an email, not as a bugzilla comment,
because thats how the receiver sees it.
Best,
Bjoern
(*) if he were, his bug wouldnt be struck in NEEDINFO for 6 month ;)
___
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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Kieran Peckett wrote: > > It has been 180 days (6 months) since we asked you for more information > about this bug. We will be waiting for information a further 30 days (1 > month) before closing this bug. > > For more information, go to: [link goes here] The shorter the message, the more likely people are to read it :-) Quick note: because the days to month numbers aren't exact, I'd suggest either dropping them: "It has been 180 days since..", or add a qualifier: "(~6 months)" or "(approx. 6 months)". Cheers, --R ___ 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
Something shorter and easier to understand that might work - you don't have to use this if you want, I'm just making ideas. It has been 180 days (6 months) since we asked you for more information about this bug. We will be waiting for information a further 30 days (1 month) before closing this bug. For more information, go to: [link goes here] Hope this can help as something to base ideas off. On 22 April 2013 00:26, Pedro wrote: > 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/ > ___ 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
On 04/21/2013 10:45 AM, Rainer Bielefeld wrote: Joel Madero schrieb: This bug has been in NEEDINFO state for more than 180 days Hi, this text IMHO is much too elaborated and prim, please do not use it. If you plan such actions please leave a related description in the Wiki, most here do not have the time to find all scattered info in various threads. Currently I haven't a clue how the text will be used. As personal Mail? As comment in The bug? For comments in the Bug please consider that queries have an important role for bug wrangling, and the text uses several possible key words like regular, information, time, ... Please limit the comment to 1 line + a link to text in the Wiki concerning more info! And BTW, still nobody was able to contribute a plausible explication concerning the benefit of these auto-closes (except hope that some users will contribute more useful info, but my experience is that most of them only write "still in version ...) - or did I miss something? CU Rainer I'll rework the comment again and see if I can find some middle ground. Yes the idea is a comment and I can see your point (although querying in FDO comments is already not very useful ;) ) So Actions for me: Make a much shorter statement Make a wiki page that clearly defines the process, the rationale & links to relevant mail threads As for the rationale: 1. Make NEEDINFO mean something (instead of it just being a status that a bug sits in indefinitely) 2. Encourage/remind users to keep up with their bug reports 3. Remind users to mark their bug as UNCONFIRMED if they have already submitted material After long discussions and email threads it seems like *most* people agree that NEEDINFO should be a temporary status - I think that every other big FOSS product that I know of uses NEEDINFO as something similar including big names like Canonical and Gnome. If a user hasn't responded within 6 months to a NEEDINFO, then gets reminded and a month later still hasn't responded it is VERY unlikely that the bug will ever be touched. NEEDINFO should give us an idea of "how many bugs have a chance of returning back to UNCONFIRMED and then need triaged" - the current situation is not that at all, more than 50% will almost never be touched and therefore we never have to worry about it. Users have some responsibility to help us help them ;) Best, Joel ___ 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/
Re: [Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
Joel Madero schrieb: This bug has been in NEEDINFO state for more than 180 days Hi, this text IMHO is much too elaborated and prim, please do not use it. If you plan such actions please leave a related description in the Wiki, most here do not have the time to find all scattered info in various threads. Currently I haven't a clue how the text will be used. As personal Mail? As comment in The bug? For comments in the Bug please consider that queries have an important role for bug wrangling, and the text uses several possible key words like regular, information, time, ... Please limit the comment to 1 line + a link to text in the Wiki concerning more info! And BTW, still nobody was able to contribute a plausible explication concerning the benefit of these auto-closes (except hope that some users will contribute more useful info, but my experience is that most of them only write "still in version ...) - or did I miss something? CU Rainer ___ 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/
[Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes
Hi All, Did just a little work on the text for NEEDINFO, starting the first test of 50 bugs this week, if there are any comments please send them my way. Thanks again Florian for getting this text together :) Dear Sir or Madam, This bug has been in NEEDINFO state for more than 180 days (6 months). The requested information is important to push this issue forward towards a resolution. Please provide the missing information as soon as possible and then mark the bug as UNCONFIRMED. It is possible that the bug was stuck in NEEDINFO state by mistake or that the requested information has already been added. If this is the case please put the bug back to UNCONFIRMED. As part of our regular QA workflow we will be closing this bug as INVALID in 30 days if the information has not been provided and the bug has not been put back to UNCONFIRMED status. If the bug is put into INVALID status but you are able to append the requested information, feel free to open the bug back up as UNCONFIRMED. Lastly, because the bug has been in NEEDINFO status for such a length of time, if possible, please confirm that the bug is still present in a newer release and leave a comment stating the latest version that has been tested -- please DO NOT change the Version field on the bug. The LibreOffice QA team Best Regards, Joel ___ 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/
