Launchpad bug workflow change

[Scott Kitterman]

On Tuesday 19 June 2007 18:57, Henrik Nilsen Omma wrote:
> Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >> I don't think you should assign a bug to yourself if you are not working
> >> on fixing it. IMO you should try to move it along to the Triaged state
> >> as efficiently as possible and bugs should be assigned to the developer
> >> or dev team who is going to fix it.
> >>
> >> I realise that this thinking does not match current triaging policy but
> >> IMO that policy should be changed. Too many bugs are being held up in
> >> half-triaged states. Important bugs are sometimes not getting the
> >> attention they should while less important ones are cluttering up the
> >> field.
> >
> > So is this imposing policy change through system updates without
> > discussing it with those affected or were there people involved in the
> > triaging process that were consulted?
>
> First, you are mixing up two things. The technical change made to
> launchpad has been discussed for a while, including at UDS in Sevilla
> where community members participated and the phone lines to the world
> were open.
>
> Second, we are not imposing 'this' policy (that triagers should not
> assign themselves) at all. I just gave you my personal opinion. I know
> that many disagree with me on that and that I will have to make my case
> here in much more detail before in can get any more traction.

OK.  I guess I missed the meeting.  Where is this change documented?  Was 
there a spec?  Anything those of us who were unable to participate in UDS 
could have seen this coming?

Restrictions imposed by the technical change are defacto policy.  If you 
change the system, you've changed policy.

> >> FWIW, I'm not a developer myself, I'm simply looking at ways of making
> >> the triage process more structured and efficient.
> >
> > Currently in LP assigned means this is the person who is expected to take
> > the next step on the bug (for example when I set a bug to needs info, I
> > generally assign it to the reporter to make this clear).
>
> That's what you take it to mean and that's what the wiki suggests. I
> happen to think it's not the best way to do it. Traditionally in open
> source projects a bug has been assigned to the person intending to fix it.
>
> > I'm not sure how taking away triaging tools aligns with your stated goal?
>
> I think I have helped create more triage tools than I have taken away ;)

I have no idea.  I think here you are taking them away for no good reason that 
I have seen.

Scott K