On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella <[email protected]> wrote: > C de-Avillez: >> >> I will try to stress the above a bit more: users in general will always >> assume their bug is high/critical (it is, by definition, affecting their >> work!). >> >> We did have it, sort of, on for a while -- and we found that importance >> would have to be controlled. We used to spend a nice amount of time >> correcting importance. Samewise with moving to triaged, or fix released, >> or wontfix. > > > What do you see when you look at <http://tinyurl.com/qefxjoo>?
I am pretty sure I know the definitions for importance values but, anyway, thank you for pointing them to me. This, on the other hand, does not explain or justify giving end-users access to setting importance (or even understanding how to set it). Our experience on Ubuntu, and my personal experience when doing support work professionally, still shows me that end-users should not have access to importance, as implemented in LP. So, even if we are to allow end-users (the original posters) to email BugControl stating a bug is critical -- but *NOT* changing importance directly -- I have serious doubts about how effective it will be. This would be different if LP supported user-view of importance and impact *separate* from bug importance as seen by the technical resource -- developer or triager. But it does not. Going on. We can try, perhaps by setting a new ML for that. But definitely NOT by having the OP email BugControl. We can then verify how much overhead it will be. At least for the beginning, I do not expect many emails, but that might change as this new channel gets to be known. -- Ubuntu-quality mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
