I think I can provide some context here, because this really seems to be about something specific. The Reading Infrastructure team recently inherited maintenance responsibility for the Wikimedia maps stack, resourced on a very limited basis. Along with that, we inherited a backlog of many hundreds of tasks, many of which have seen no activity for years. For the past couple of months, a few of us have spent an hour each week trying to work through the backlog trying to triage all of these. In the course of these grooming meetings, we have closed more than a few tasks based on a combination of not having the resources to work on them, and it not seeming likely that anyone else will, either; the theory here is that it can better reflect reality to openly decline a task than to let it languish in a backlog indefinitely.
If this contravenes the relevant norms, I apologize. If you were upset by the closing of what you believe to be a valid maps ticket, please feel free to reopen. Thanks. On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 10:06 PM Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Declined = WONTFIX (e.g. if some talented developer wrote a patch, and the > patch was perfect, you would still -2 it because the functionality is not > wanted/stupid/etc) > > Invalid = not a real bug. That should include things like spam, stuff where > the reporter is mistaken ( can't reproduce or if someone say reports a > sharepoint bug) > > I think the defining difference is its possible to write a patch for a > declined bug, even though it would be rejected, where an invalid bug by > definition is unfixable. > > Just my 2 cents, others may have different definitions. > > -- > Brian > > p.s. ive never liked the "need volunteer" term for lowest priority - I have > always felt it had offensive implications as if volunteer time isnt as > important so they get the low priority bugs. > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018, Joe Matazzoni <jmatazz...@wikimedia.org> > wrote: > > I agree with Amir’s understanding. "Declined” is basically for ideas > whose proper timing is never. Valid ideas that we just aren’t going to > work on any time soon should go in a backlog or freezer or some such, where > they can await until some future project or other development makes them > relevant (at least theoretically). > > > > All of which does raise a slightly different question: I am much less > clear on what the exact difference is between “Invalid” and “Declined.” > Thoughts? > > > > Best, > > Joe > > _____________________ > > > > Joe Matazzoni > > Product Manager, Collaboration > > Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco > > mobile 202.744.7910 > > jmatazz...@wikimedia.org > > > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in > the sum of all knowledge." > > > > > > > > > >> On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Amir E. Aharoni < > amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I sometimes see WMF developers and product managers marking tasks as > >> "Declined" with comments such as these: > >> * "No resources for it in (team name)" > >> * "We won't have the resources to work on this anytime soon." > >> * "I do not plan to work on this any time soon." > >> > >> Can we perhaps agree that the "Declined" status shouldn't be used like > this? > >> > >> "Declined" should be valid when: > >> * The component is no longer maintained (this is often done as > >> mass-declining). > >> * A product manager, a developer, or any other sensible stakeholder > thinks > >> that doing the task as proposed is a bad idea. There are also variants > of > >> this: > >> * The person who filed the tasks misunderstood what the software > component > >> is supposed to do and had wrong expectations. > >> * The person who filed the tasks identified a real problem, but another > >> task proposes a better solution. > >> > >> It's quite possible that some people will disagree with the decision to > >> mark a particular task as "Declined", but the reasons above are > legitimate > >> explanations. > >> > >> However, if the task suggests a valid idea, but the reason for declining > is > >> that a team or a person doesn't plan to work on it because of lack of > >> resources or different near-term priorities, it's quite problematic to > mark > >> it as Declined. > >> > >> It's possible to reopen tasks, of course, but nevertheless "Declined" > gives > >> a somewhat permanent feeling, and may cause good ideas to get lost. > >> > >> So can we perhaps decide that such tasks should just remain Open? Maybe > >> with a Lowest priority, maybe in something like a "Freezer" or "Long > term" > >> or "Volunteer needed" column on a project workboard, but nevertheless > Open? > >> > >> -- > >> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי > >> http://aharoni.wordpress.com > >> “We're living in pieces, > >> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikitech-l mailing list > >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikitech-l mailing list > > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
