On 31 October 2013 23:07, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Matthew Flaschen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't think we should get into weird substitutions just because people >> are edit warring. >> >> The active maintainers/team (whether they be volunteer or WMF) should >> have the final say on prioritization and which bugs are open. >> >> Lowest is not the same as WONTFIX. 'Lowest' priority means it should be >> fixed eventually, but there's a huge list of things to fix before it. >> WONTFIX means it's incorrect to change it (e.g. doing this change would >> make the user experience worse). >> > > It looks like I'm the contrarian here. This seems like one of those > inclusionist/deletionist battles that each side is going to have a tough > time understanding the others' point of view. > > "WONTFIX" is often used to mean "maybe this should be fixed eventually, or > maybe it should never be fixed, but it probably doesn't matter because > we'll never get around to it". >
That's what "LATER" was for; we scrapped that, however, with agreement that the correct setting for issues with that approach is, indeed, "Lowest". However, each and every time I use "WONTFIX" I expect to get reverted (in VisualEditor I'd guesstimate that 50% of WONTFIXes are REOPENED, generally within the day); each revert war takes ~ an hour of my time, over the ensuing weeks, until either they give up or I re-prioritise my time and just pretend that it's still marked as "WONTFIX". Not really that efficacious a use of my time. J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. [email protected] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
