On 2023-03-17 09:46, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
The engineering managers at WMF; That's what they're hired to do! They
develop and manage available resources to reduce meta-toil and enable
minions to spend more time working on stuff. :)
Except the engineering managers only cover a minute !!! part
> The engineering managers at WMF; That's what they're hired to do! They
> develop and manage available resources to reduce meta-toil and enable
> minions to spend more time working on stuff. :)
Except the engineering managers only cover a minute !!! part of all the
tickets. There are like 15 team
On 2023-03-16 17:25, Thiemo Kreuz wrote:
Can we agree on setting up some standards […]?
I wonder why? What problem are we trying to solve?
The problem this solves is the constant confusion as to the meaning of
various statuses. Tickets often have more than one team tagged for a
single task,
> Can we agree on setting up some standards […]?
I wonder why? What problem are we trying to solve? I mean, it's not
like I can edit the priority of a Phabricator ticket and expect some
other team to act accordingly. This is not how cross-team
collaboration works, neither with nor without an agree
I problem I've whined^h^h^h^h^h^h discussed about in the wishlist surveys
before is that phab is a catch all, just as it isn't the best RFC platform
(we do have several wikis after all) it is fairly poor incident management
system ("helpdesk ticket") system as well. We've got a rule-of-the-hammer
p
On 2023-03-13 13:12, Andre Klapper wrote:
On Fri, 2023-02-24 at 08:31 -0700, Brian Wolff wrote:
I feel this is a problem with phabricator being used as both a
project management tool for teams and as a bug tracker, when those
are different things.
Agreed! I find using Phabricator for RFCs als
On Fri, 2023-02-24 at 08:31 -0700, Brian Wolff wrote:
>
> I feel this is a problem with phabricator being used as both a
> project management tool for teams and as a bug tracker, when those
> are different things. Certainly its reasonable for teams to have bugs
> they dont think is worth fixing an
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 4:24 AM Antoine Musso wrote:
> Le 27/02/2023 à 13:05, David Gerard a écrit :
> > Can I just note that however you word it, closing volunteers' good
> > faith bugs because nobody is available from the organisation right now
> > is an excellent way to get them never to file
Le 27/02/2023 à 13:05, David Gerard a écrit :
Can I just note that however you word it, closing volunteers' good
faith bugs because nobody is available from the organisation right now
is an excellent way to get them never to file a bug again.
Hello,
Possibly, though laying them open for years
Can I just note that however you word it, closing volunteers' good
faith bugs because nobody is available from the organisation right now
is an excellent way to get them never to file a bug again.
- d.
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 12:02, Jaime Crespo wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 4:32
Hi,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 4:32 PM Brian Wolff wrote:
> If i could change the priority field i would probably change it to be only:
> * unbreak now
> * work on next (or "urgent")
> * normal
> * no intention to fix (aka lowest)
>
I support this, but we should be careful about the wording. The
On Friday, February 24, 2023, Dan Garry (Deskana) wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 11:20, Andre Klapper
> wrote:
>
>> * Personally I also assume Lowest priority is sometimes used instead
>>of honestly declining a task (means: "this is not a good idea"[5]).
>>But of course that is rather
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 11:20, Andre Klapper wrote:
> * Personally I also assume Lowest priority is sometimes used instead
>of honestly declining a task (means: "this is not a good idea"[5]).
>But of course that is rather hard to prove.
>
This is anecodal, but when I was a product manage
13 matches
Mail list logo
