On 12-03-28 10:24 AM, Tobias Wunden wrote: > During today's adopters meeting, the issue has been brought up that there > doesn't seem to be a good process and practice in place for communication > related to issues filed by "pure" adopters, meaning individuals or > institutions that are sometimes neither on IRC nor at the developer meetings > to "promote" their tickets (as a sidenote, both of these communication > channels / opportunities are open for everyone!). > > Adopters were basically asking how the process could be improved, and it > seems like one major improvement would be if developers took a look at newly > filed tickets, classify and schedule them according to importance and > resources and, most importantly, add comments in case the ticket status > (importance, fix version, ...) is changed so that the adopter understands why > a certain ticket that he/she considers a blocker may not be a blocker by the > developers. > > Please add your thoughts and suggestions, in order for us to implement an > improved communication strategy. Note that I am cross-posting this message to > both the developers and the users list, but I think it would be beneficial to > keep the discussion on the the users list.
I was actually going to comment on something similar in regards to the mess we currently have in JIRA. Our current policy is that a new bug has no assignee, and requires no fix version. This means that, as of right now, there are 770 issues with no fix version, and 494 issues with no assignee. Many of these issues are also very badly out of date (eg: 1.0, or pre-1.0 tickets), or have no apparent version of Matterhorn associated with them. Obviously it's really really easy for a newly filed ticket to fly way under everyone's radar, so we need to put some serious thought into this. Perhaps we need to identify product owner type people again, and have them try and farm out tickets based on the component field? This sucks, but having people file tickets that never get looked at doesn't work at all. As is I'm not quite sure what to do with the current mess... G > Tobias > _______________________________________________ > Matterhorn-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn-users
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Matterhorn-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn-users
