https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=411285
--- Comment #9 from Filipus Klutiero <chea...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #8) > I think I see the problem. You forgot to read > https://community.kde.org/Get_Involved/ > Issue_Reporting#Understand_what_the_resolution_statuses_mean. :) Hah. I have been contributing to KDE for more than a decade. Even that site didn't exist when I started reporting issues. In any case, putting your creative interpretations on that page does not make them reality nor even majority interpretations. Your tracker etiquette section is generally helpful, but: 1. Section "Don't confirm your own issue" is unclear. I think you may have a valid concern here, but the proper way to address it is to file a ticket against bugs.kde.org. 2. Some sections have nothing, nothing clear or little to do with etiquette ("Avoid arguments", "Have a thick skin", "Don't confirm your own issue", "Submit patches using Phabricator, not the issue tracker", "Understand what the resolution statuses mean"). 3. It seems rather childish at times (in particular section "Avoid arguments). I'm not sure young people will read such long pages, but I would recommend to put essential stuff before subjective parts, so people don't stop reading before they get to important stuff. 4. It could be a little briefer (I fail to see value in sections "Avoid arguments" and "Have a thick skin", at least as they currently stand). 5. Some of the objectives your section tries to achieve would be better accomplished by improving bugs.kde.org. This is particularly true for parts which contradict current bugs.kde.org, like section "Understand what the resolution statuses mean". Please file tickets if you think that would help instead. And by the way, language like "your own Bugzilla ticket" should be avoided - we don't want reporters to think they have exclusive ownership over tickets they file (or anything else they start in KDE). My general recommendation to fix the structure would be to split this page in 2. You could have a new page which only covers issue creation steps, which would make it more comfortable to add top-level sections, as the top level wouldn't be some awkward mixture anymore, and it wouldn't be so tempting to abuse the etiquette section. Or, make all step sections subsections. > I think I understand that this doesn't work the way you think it should > work. But it works the way *we* think it should work, "we" being KDE's bug > triagers, system administrators, and software developers. I know you are trying to help KDE, and I appreciate your work in general. But if you want to help with this bug, stop ignoring what others write, and rather than keep arguing (which, according to your own account, "almost always gets nowhere"), start by answering questions. At this point, no one has taken responsibility for Bug Janitor Service (even you haven't done so explicitly). Assuming you are the (main) person who implemented, please do not take this report as an accusation. As I think I wrote initially, I understand it tries to help with a problem. It's just the solution chosen which is wrong. Please simply take this as an opportunity to discuss how Bug Janitor Service could achieve its goal properly. > You are still welcome to make an argument for why the status quo is wrong or > bad or harmful or doesn't work. But continuously re-stating descriptions of > it in various forms is not likely to change anyone's mind. I am happy to let you keep your opinion. All I'm asking you (if you're not responsible for Bug Janitor Service) is to fix this ticket's status; you broke it, you get to fix it. If you can't do it yourself, at least have the decency of finding someone who can, file a replacement ticket - or just fix the bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
