Rolf, thank you for your e-mail. On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 3:03 AM, Rolf Leggewie <[email protected]> wrote: > Christopher wrote: >> However, our fellow Ubuntu Bug Control member Rolf Leggewie is of the >> strong opinion that this has nothing to do with the linux kernel, but >> with unity. > > Christopher, you are knowingly misrepresenting me without even having > the decency to send me a CC (I've only subscribed temporarily to this ML > now and copied above text from the web). That makes me uneasy.
My apologies for not CC'ing you, as I thought you were already subscribed. > https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity/+bug/1353129/comments/21 > Nowhere have I ever given an indication of a *STRONG* opinion, quite the > contrary as seen in the link. > > I only come to know of your mail because I had prepared a mail of my own > to send to this list about "quality vs. quantity" work in LP. At least > I had the decency to plan and sleep over it and CC you. Sigh! > > As someone who is possibly affected by above bug I merely asked you (in > unison with the OP of 1353129) to stay away. Another courtesy you > routinely do not afford to others. Your work is alienating people from > Ubuntu I am afraid and results in more tickets closed but less bugs > getting reported and fixed, I feel. If you find something I've done alienating, I deeply and sincerely apologize for this. I will reflect on the intent of this e-mail, and how to better my triaging approach. My intentions are only to get to the technical root cause of a particular report, and follow the guidelines already set out by the respective teams whose packages I triage. If you would have suggestions in the future, it would be appreciated if you would extend me a courtesy and e-mail me directly, like the courtesy I afforded you, but you ignored. > Your playground is the kernel, so I > tried to move the ticket away from your playground, as a courtesy and to > calm things down. Sigh! Unfortunately, this wouldn't be the best reason to adjust package assignments, nor is there any Ubuntu Bug Control documentation, or any other team for that matter, advising you to do this. Despite this, different development and triage groups respond and pay attention based on the package assignment. When you change the assignment, are advised by others who are more familiar with the issue at hand this is wrong on technical grounds, but you advise you aren't claiming this is a bug in the package, and provide no technical justification to your actions, you are undermining the ability of the issue to be addressed by the correct development group. As well, you are delaying Ubuntu community members from getting their issue addressed. > Since we are already at it, here is the mail I had planned to send. > > > Subject: Christopher Penalver bug handling methodology > > Hello, > > my name is Rolf Leggewie. I've been a long-time bug-control member with > a steady Ubuntu contribution history slowly approaching 10 years. But I > usually work on my own, so maybe some people here know me while others > may not. > > A few years ago, a fellow member of bug-control named Christopher > Penalver came onto the scene and has managed to log an impressive amount > of comments in LP and other work. That should be reason for applause. > Unfortunately, he also managed to piss off quite a few people in the > process, mostly ordinary users, I suppose, and IMVHO presented the > Ubuntu bug triage process in a bad light. The message sent is akin to > "How dare you report an issue to us? We will make you jump through all > kinds of time-consuming and sometimes risky hoops and once we run out of > hoops to throw at you we will ignore you until the next release when we > repeat the cycle." The only thing I do when triaging the linux kernel is that outlined by the Ubuntu Kernel Team's documentation: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam/KernelTeamBugPolicies If I happen to have the hardware, I can go ahead and test to it myself. However, this is rarely the case. With regards to userspace, it's a far more easy endeavor as one may test to the issue directly. He is usually politically-correct so that wording > above is obviously purely my own, but the message sent and more > importantly the one that is received is clearly as stated above. I don't think my asking original reporters for information that helps get their bug fixed as fast as possible speaks to that at all. > Ubuntu should do better and by granting bug-control we allow Christopher > to represent Ubuntu. I am uneasy about that. I am uneasy about the > amount of privs he has been given to do his IMVHO net-negative work. > Since I am uneasy about the privs he already got I wanted to publicly > voice my concern if ever he applied for even more. I left him a > negative review on his wiki page which he removed within less than 15 > minutes even though he actively asks for reviews[1]. An inability to > deal with criticism makes me uneasy. There is a difference between constructive criticism, and you being rude by vandalizing my wiki page, which is perceived as trolling. As well, you have been attacking me personally, insulting me, and making baseless accusations, counter to the Ubuntu Code of Conduct you signed, and to what Ubuntu represents. > I firmly believe Christopher has good intentions. In fact, I believe > they are too good and he should slow down. Aim for more quality and > less quantity or even take a sabbatical. From what I can see, his > interest is in closing the maximum amount of tickets or at least to get > them off-radar in another way. That makes me uneasy. I have always aimed for triaging at the highest quality level, and in line with the procedures set out before me. If you have an issue with a particular procedure, please speak to that so that it may be discussed, and changed as appropriate. If you find my actions are not in line with a particular procedure, please advise to this and I'm happy to work together with you on it. > The goal should > be to fix problems and close tickets only as a consequence. I fully agree. >The procedures he uses alienate a tremendous amount of reporters and paints > Ubuntu in a bad light. That makes me uneasy. Extrapolating your opinion on one bug report to a tremendous amount is exaggerating. > At least in my case, he makes my life as bug-control more difficult by > insisting I cannot do > bug-triage the way *I* would like to do it because apparently he sees LP > as some kind of game or power struggle or what-not and he doesn't like > to back down. I don't view this as a game, or a power struggle, as it would undermine what Ubuntu is all about. A part of the problem here is you have provided no technical justification, code, procedure, documentation, etc. to justify your actions (being rude, trolling me, making factually incorrect statements about how the kernel team doesn't care or fix anything, etc.). So far, triaging the way you want has largely been a distraction to the original reporter's issue. While I'm not one to stand in the way of anyone triaging, what you did in this example wouldn't be helpful. > He is a stickler for rules which I believe he mostly > invented himself All the procedures in the various team documents publicly available existed long before I became involved as a volunteer. If you have a specific critique of an article, please advise to this. > and should never be seen as gospel anyhow. People > frequently ask him to ignore their tickets and he never does. That > makes me uneasy. Extrapolating one ticket to frequently is not being fair here. > So, now what? I'd like to see how others feel about this. I appreciate > the help that Christopher is trying to give. But I would like to send > him a public message that I believe he should slow down and focus on > quality support instead of a massive, bot-like number of canned > responses and wiki links. I appreciate the intent of the message you are trying to make here. It shows that you care a lot, as do I, about ensuring a quality experience of Ubuntu, both from the operating system, and of the community. I believe using a canned response with sound judgment has a place in getting a consistent, helpful output for developers to fix issues. There are countless examples of this being the case on Launchpad and other bug trackers from others, as well as myself. With this in mind, what would be the alternative to responses that have been agreed upon by the various Ubuntu development and triage teams to gather required information? As well, the wiki links I quote are to the same development and triage team procedures set out previously. Ultimately, another side of this we would both share, is a frustration in the sheer volume of bugs outstanding that go and remain untriaged, unfixed, etc. I think this, combined with us participating in a technical computing project, is a recipe for differences in opinion, discourse, and the infrequent flare up. I'll take this as a opportunity to learn from those who have come before me, and I do appreciate your input. Thank you for your understanding Rolf. > Best regards > > Rolf Leggewie > > PS: English is not my first language and I am slightly aggravated, but > my intentions are good. If in doubt about a meaning of what I wrote, > please ask first before jumping to conclusions. > > > [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/penalvch?action=diff&rev2=26&rev1=25 Sincerely, Christopher M. Penalver E-Mail: [email protected] _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
