Incomplete with no response >30 days

[sense at qense.nl]

Quoting Sarah Hobbs <hobbsee at ubuntu.com>:

> HggdH wrote:
>>> We also discussed what the solution should be. ScottK is going
>>> to mail the ubuntu-devel-discuss with the proposal that we came
>>> up with. If that is accepted then the changes will be announced
>>> here.
>>
>> I am not quite sure I understand. So the proposal will be discussed by
>> developers without input from triagers? Frankly, I do not agree.
>>
>> Since I think this will start another heavy discussion, I am also
>> copying ubuntu-devel-discuss here. But, certainly, alienating bug-squad
>> is not right.
>>
>> ..hggdh..
>>
>>
> Whoever said that the bug triagers could not contribute to
> -devel-discuss?  For that matter, whoever said that they do not do so
> already?
>
> But, again, i'd point out what Reinhart has eloquently said:
>
>> I'm sorry, but I may have misunderstood something. I thought the point
>> of the bugsquad team was to make the live of developers easier and not
>> more complicated.
>>
>> Clearly these bugs cause misunderstanding on the bugsquad team. I
>> therefore thing these type of bugs need to be discussed with the
>> developers who have to work with them (which basically means all
>> developers). Since you cannot expect all developers to read this mailing
>> list, I'd suggest starting that discussion on ubuntu-devel.
>>
>
> There seems to be an attitude of "screw the developers, we are the
> mighty bug squad, and can do what we like" here.
>
> But really, isn't the job of the bug squad to get bugs into a good
> state of triage, so they can be dealt with by the developers?  Does it
> not make sense, therefore, to listen to what the developers want the
> bug squad to do to the bugs, in a general sense, and then for the bug
> squad to go away and deal with the specifics?
>
> I don't think the bug squad should have the right to say "we will make
> the rules, everyone else must follow them", as, while there are many
> bug squad people (yes, developers are still bug squad too), the bug
> squad does not put real bugs (ie, not invalid, etc) in a final state,
> so someone always has to come after them, and touch the bugs
> afterwards. This is not the case for developers.
>
> For those who are interested in getting the bugs into a final, finished
> state, in the bug squad, you may want to look at becoming developers
> yourselves.
>
> Just my AUD $0.02, from another fellow member of the bug squad and developer
>
> Hobbsee

I agree the Bugsquad sometimes forget they're not the only one here.  
But the developers sometimes also forget that. We're not the humble  
servant of the developers, although during some discussions I felt  
like we were being treated like that. (Of course not everyone does  
that, and there are also people in the bugsquad that behaved like  
that(maybe I even sounded so).)

We should discuss this together, as equals. We need each other. We  
also should discuss this together and listen to each other. And yes,  
maybe the Bugsquad should be the group that adapts the most to the  
developers. But we shouldn't do exactly as told.
I'm against having this discussion at devel-discuss. Not all bugsquad  
members are subscribed to that and it sounds a bit like the developers  
are thinking what's the best for us. But if we get a dozen exceptions  
more to cope with I think the bug triaging will become slower and less  
popular resulting in more open bugs and less complete bugs for the  
developers.

We should just be nice to each other. Don't bitch, get angry or run  
away in a discussion. The only problem is where to have the  
discussion. Maybe we should create a separate mailist for workflows  
and triaging policies. I think this subject is important enough to get  
an own mailist.

Sense Hofstede

(Maybe I sound a bit rude. I'm sorry for that. Please don't forget I'm  
a 15 year old Dutch boy, so I can get the nuances wrong. And when you  
aren't talking with people while standing in front of them, things are  
easier misunderstood.)