> > It hasn't been about what you should be doing but what should be done
> > in general. This is, or should have been, a "high level" discussion
> > on strategy and principles, not about who, specifically, should be
> > doing what.
> That is not at all what this discussion has been about. This discussion
> has been about a specific request made of me by Peter Lairo. He
> requested that I create a keyword for Bugzilla called *LowRiskHighReward*.
You're taking far too parochial a view of things. Any 3rd party
reading over this entire thread can clearly see that while the
discussion may be have been generated over that request, the actual
subject matter has been broader. Peter has explained that his reason
for asking for such a keyword was because he thought that it's
introduction would help as a step towards broader changes. Also, my
own discussion has even left behind the point of keywords and gone on
to different areas.
> either. If you or others here want to help Peter get more people
> looking at his bugs that's also fine with me but don't confuse that with
> some "making contributing to Mozilla easier" effort.
That is exactly the reasoning behind his introduction of the
keyword, which has been explained already. Would it be better if I
changed the title of this
thread?
> No list of bugs alone is going to make contributing code fixes to
> Mozilla any easier, especially a list of bugs that is constructed by
Yes. And, again, as has already been said nobody here has claimed
that a list of bugs alone would do this.
> would be a handful of Fixed bugs which have very clear descriptions of
> the fixing process recorded in the bug. If Peter wanted to go through
A very good idea!
Jason.
