On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 22:12:14 +0500 Omer Akram Bhutta <[email protected]> wrote:
> Kiwinote is awesome in software-center bugs, I am just subscribed to > the package but see a lot of emails regularly handled in a manner > which a bug control member does and he is also fixing bugs +1 Hi Omer, I do not doubt it. But... when someone applies to BugControl, we expect the five bugs shown to be a *good* representation of the quality of one's triaging knowledge. Kiwinote's list of bugs are -- in this case -- not good quality in terms of triage. So, I am siding with Brian C -- I must give Kiwinote a -1. Kiwinote -- please repropose with a better selection of bugs showing your skills on triage, and I will review it happily. An observation (not necessarily applying to Kiwinote, just using the moment to raise it): one of the most important differences between a plain triager and a BugController is the ability to set up Importance. Obviously, when we set Importance we do such based on our understanding of the issue and its impacts. New data on the bug, or a revision of our undertanding of the impacts, may very well require a change in Importance; this is no big deal, and reflects the normal triage process. BUT: BugControllers are expected to get it right *most* of the times. Regards, ..C..
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
