On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Rainer Bielefeld <libreoff...@bielefeldundbuss.de> wrote: > Robinson Tryon schrieb: > >> Bugzilla is for bugs that we're willing to address/fix as a project, > > Hi Robinson, > > I am (more or less) the the creator of the LibO Bugzilla bug tracking > system
Really? cool -- I didn't know that. Learn something new every day, I guess :-) > so I think I have some overview what should be done and what should > not be done. Oh, okay. I'm a relative newcomer to the LibreOffice project, so I'm not aware of all of the general rules on how we handle stuff or who is officially in charge of what pieces of the project. If Bugzilla falls under your official oversight, then I agree that we should consult you when we deal with it. From my standpoint, I think that we can be more successful and productive as a QA Team (work more efficiently, recruit and retain more members, etc..), and cultivate a better working relationship with our users if we make some changes both to our workflow for Bugzilla and for the Extension site. >> I'll leave some notes there, and make a note about that page section >> in the agenda for our next meeting. What do you think about moving >> that proposal to the 'Talk' page for BugTriage? > > No! Consider that text as the current regulations for the proceeding I think that we're just chatting informally about some proposals right now. Talk of "regulations" or "proceedings" seems to describe a much more formal process than our current method of meetings or current guidelines on the QA pages (e.g. BugTriage) would suggest. Are you suggesting that the description you wrote up on the QA-FAQ page should be considered the canonical method of triaging extension bugs until the next QA meeting? My understanding was that no documentation about triaging extension bugs existed up to this point (at least not that I could find), so I'm not sure why your "regulations" should be considered more official than any of our other proposals. > , if you > or anybody else has well founded suggestions he can simply add amendments or > corrections with some explications on the talk page. Sorry, which Talk: page? If you are suggesting some kind of formal proposal, I believe it might be appropriate to put it on its own wiki page? > Please excuse me for my > direct statement: we do not need a theoretical consideration here, the > experienced key players know how to handle that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Who are the "experienced key players" of whom you speak, and what, *precisely*, are they able to handle? At first glance, I thought that your statement was telling me that that as I was neither a key player nor an experienced player that I shouldn't make suggestions, but I'm sure that that inclination was misfounded. > Butneverthless I agree with some of your and especially Cor's arguments, it > is important to state that it's a LibO / TDF service to contribute a > platform to make public the Extensions, but the Extensions are out of our > responsibility, and users install them on their own risk and have no claims > against LibO concerning correct function of the extensions, maintenance and > so on. Especially unexperienced end users might draw wrong conclusions if > they find a bug report concerning an extension among all the other LibO > related bug reports. I will add an additional hint in the Bugzilla and BSA > Help for that Component so that everybody can see that the handling of > Extension bugs might differ from the handling of bug report related to LibO > core components. What do you think about proposing and discussing changes to the Bugzilla/BSA Help on the QA list? I'm not sure we need to discuss all changes we make to these texts, but given that we've already had a bit of a discussion on this topic this week it might be nice to hear suggestions from multiple people on what wording would be most clear to our users. > If somebody thinks we need some more explication / clarification on the > Extensions Website, he should simply submit a bug report. Experts will find > that, discuss if necessary and contribute a fix. Sorry to keep on asking questions, but who are these "Experts", and is there any chance that we could encourage that discussion to take place in public instead of in private? Up to this point we've had some really great discussion about the interaction between QA and the Extensions site. Cor brought up some good points, Joel chimed in, we've cc'd Andreas (who I believe is in charge of Extensions), and it sounded like we were well on our way to communally coming up with a great plan that would make things easier for the QA Team and make things clearer for users who want to install extensions. Rainer, your message seems to suggest that we should hand over this work to the "experienced key players" and "Experts" and let them make all the decisions from this point forward. Is that an accurate characterization of your email? I'd like to suggest that we work communally and openly to discuss and solve our current action items (from our last team meeting). That seems like the best way for us to include the viewpoints of individuals and hear suggestions from all the members of our team, and to continue working in a meritocratic fashion. Thanks, --R _______________________________________________ List Name: Libreoffice-qa mailing list Mail address: Libreoffice-qa@lists.freedesktop.org Change settings: http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice-qa Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/
