issue triage

[David Cheney]

It seem clear that my approach to bug triage is not appropriate. I withdraw my nomination. 


On Wednesday, 29 August 2012 at 11:27 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 3:03 AM, William Reade
> <william.reade at canonical.com (mailto:william.reade at canonical.com)> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-29 at 11:43 +1000, David Cheney wrote:
> > > This constitutes the plank for my nomination. All issues assigned
> > > to a milestone or closed. No issue shall be left behind.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> This means one of two things:
> 
> 1) We have milestones that we actually have no idea about whether
> we'll really be working on those tasks or not, because they are too
> far ahead, or because we have no idea of how long the task would
> really take to be completed.
> 
> 2) We're closing tickets that offer relevant information too early, just
> so we can feel good about an empty tracker.
> 
> The underlying problem sounds to me like a data categorization and
> visualization issue. In the end, "Open" vs. "Closed" it's just another
> flag in the ticket which alters its visualization on everyday
> browsing. Having a ticket we think is a reasonable possibility being
> "Closed" is miss-categorizing it, and so is assigning a ticket to a
> person or milestone that we have no realistic idea about yet. There
> are many other forms of categorization, though, from importance
> (Wishlist, etc) to tags. The key is finding a way to observe the
> content we have in a way that distills the true information in there.
> 
> 
> gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net