Hello, We probably all remember the arguments and rants that appeared a while ago when MOTU got irritated by interference of the Bug Squad in their work flow[1]. MOTU uses the statuses differently than the Bug Squad does and even uses reports that would be dismissed as Invalid by some members of the Bug Squad. However, after the dust settled it was decided to make an exception for MOTU and allow them to use their own work-flow. The Bug Squad policy was adapted to leave these kind of bugs alone.
The packagers are not the only team to use different statuses. The Security Team has given different meanings to the statuses, although they still roughly mean the same.[2] More disturbing is the work-flow change that the Desktop Team has implemented. Since Launchpad cannot fetch the status of bugs from GNOME Bugzilla -- does anyone know why? -- they're using the status 'Fix Committed' to indicate that there is a patch/fix available upstream. However, Bug Control and the Bug Squad didn't receive notice -- I never saw one -- of this change, and it wasn't really discussed. This is not how things like this should go, or at least not how I feel things should go. The Bug Squad and the Bug Control are the bug masters of Ubuntu. They are responsible for managing the large amounts of bugs reported on Launchpad and making sure they get handled correctly. We do most of the bug triaging, and therefore we have to deal most with the statuses and importances used for the bugs. It's not more than fair to discuss changes of the meanings given to statuses with the teams, or at least send a notice. Especially when it concerns such a core area as the _desktop_ I think we should be involved in discussions about it. To set things clear and prevent a proliferation of different bug work-flows in use in the same 'ubuntu' project on Launchpad I think we should make either the QA team or Bug Control the team responsible for approving and keeping track of the meanings given to statuses and importances. Not that it should be some kind of bureaucratic system where the QA teams deliberate endlessly over the position of an adverb, but we should be given the opportunity to provide feedback. I'm not against the use of a different work-flow when it's unworkable to rigidly follow the default rules of the Bug Squad, the packagers can't do without their own work-flow with Launchpad in its current state. However, before a team decides to use a different work-flow it should be seriously considered if it is really necessary and really the best option. The Desktop Team could have used a tag instead, but they choose for something as disrupting as changing the work-flow for a selection of the most important packages in Ubuntu. Even if I'm the only one thinking a tag would have been sufficient, the QA teams should at least have been allowed to provide feedback and to notify their users properly. Because as we speak the documentation isn't even updated. Maybe something for a session at the UDS? [1] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MOTU/Sponsorship/SponsorsQueue [2] https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SecurityTeam/BugTriage Regards, -- Sense Hofstede [ˈsɛn.sə ˈɦɔf.steːdə] -- Ubuntu-qa mailing list Ubuntu-qa@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-qa
