Is BugControl dense?

[C de-Avillez]

On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 -0400, Robert Lummis wrote:

(I have taken out Stefan, Jeremy, and bug-control from the CC, on the
hope of controlling CC-growth. I am sure, however, that they are
following this via the ML)

> I'm not sure whom these comments should be directed to, but I would
> like to reinforce some of Stefan's comments (at least as I interpret
> them). 

This is a good place, in fact the *best* place,  and your feedback is
important.

> I also have many years IT experience including managing a
> Solaris-centric computing center and managing user support services in
> a UNIX environment. I joined bugsquad a few months ago thinking I
> could help and could learn about Linux in the process, but so far I've
> been unable to contribute one bit of help in spite of my willingness,
> and in spite of spending many hours reading how-tos and explanations
> and introductions, and searching through web page after web page. I
> keep going around in web page circles without ever getting to a place
> that actually lets me report a bug or work on a bug report from
> someone else. I tried to use the tools to report a bug I encountered
> but the tools didn't work (at least for my particular bug). Then I
> tried to report a bug in the tools but couldn't find how to do that.
> I've given up more than once then tried again but to no avail, at
> least so far.

This is really *not* the experience we would like you to have. I would
appreciate if you could give us a more detailed description of this
going roundabout -- I, for one, already know where to go, and will not
be able to understand it otherwise. But certainly we should do better.
We need to do better.
> 
> There must be a better way to organize the bug-reporting and triaging
> functions. I don't think better explanations will do it. I see that a
> lot of effort has already gone into explaining the process. But
> unfortunately the explanations don't do the job. If "outsiders" are
> going to be able to help, the process needs to be revamped somehow so
> the overall model of what's going on can be grasped. I know that's
> hard so I'm not feeling very critical of those of you who have brought
> it this far. I'm very grateful for your efforts and I admire your
> ability to get Ubuntu as good as it is. But I wanted to let you know
> that coming into the process as an outsider, willing to help and
> having a significant technical background, I've gotten lost in the
> maze.
> 
> Maybe I need a better understanding of Linux internals to be helpful.
> That would be understandable and not surprising. But if that is the
> case please say so up front and don't pretend that willingness to help
> is the main prerequisite.

This is not the case. You do not need to have a better understanding of
Linux internals, not at all. Willingness to help is indeed the major,
er, requirement.

Which means we need to adapt. So... what is bad? How can we get it
better? Your input is important: I have a serious bias, in that I know
how the system works -- and, as such, this type of problem is not as
visible for me.

Cheers,




-- 
C de-Avillez
IRC: hggdh
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-bugsquad/attachments/20100518/dff3f9d6/attachment.sig>