Proposed changes to the documentation for the empty bug watch policy discussed during the last meeting

[Marc Randolph]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Sense Hofstede <qense at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> Fixed the spelling mistake! I also agree with your suggestion in the
> last point and added it to the proposed version of the wiki page. I've
> attached a freshly generated .diff file with these changes. Thank you!
>
> However, if I'm correct, the 'Triaged' status is ought to used when
> _all_ triaging is done. This of course includes forwarding upstream.
> Only then should a bug be marked as 'Triaged'.
> If that's the policy then the charts should be adapted instead. Can
> anyone provide a definitive answer on this one?

Howdy Sense,

A bit more feedback:

first diff section:

* I would personally use the word "inform" rather than "notice"
(referencing <<This doesn't actually notice the upstream
developers>>), but perhaps there was a reason you used "notice"?  Is
it more clear to those speaking English as a second language?
* Search is misspelled as Cearch


third diff section:

* Even after reading <<You have, or someone else has, '''checked''' if
the bug is still present in the latest version, since Ubuntu usually
includes older releases of applications>>,  I suspect that someone
relatively new triagers will have several opportunities for confusion
regarding what "latest version" means.  I don't know the best way to
word it, but perhaps something a bit more detailed and closer to <<You
have, or someone else has, 'checked' if the bug is still present in
the latest version. This can include trying an unreleased PPA if
available, or compiling upstream source directly. >>  Having said it
like that, this step can appear to be quite onerous for _many_
triagers.  Would it make them shy away?

   Marc