On Nov 27, 2012, at 5:39 PM, Andre Klapper <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 17:36 -0800, James Forrester wrote:
>> On 26 November 2012 17:25, Rob Lanphier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Timeframes seem like a pretty good proxy for priority.  If something
>>> is "highest" priority, and yet is not on track to be completed for
>>> several months, then.....wait, what?
>> 
>> I disagree. In 1962, NASA's "highest" (most-high?) priority was to put
>> a human on the Moon; that doesn't mean they achieved it before 1969.
>> High priority and soonness-to-be-done are orthogonal.
> 
> I've been made aware (off-list) of some concerns of this proposal, and
> your comment provides the same sentiment.
> 
> The term "highest priority" has some ambiguity in human language.
> It's perfectly fine to state that a bunch of bug reports are "highest
> priority": Issues that a team is working on currently, or should work on
> as the very next task.
> My initial proposal was to make "highest priority" mean "really urgent"
> or "immediate". Consequently, this should also be reflected by its name.
> Still there should be a way to express what's highest priority for a
> team.
> 
> == Reworked proposal: New "Immediately" priority ==
> 
> I propose adding a *new* priority called "Immediate" which should only
> be used to mark really urgent stuff to fix. This priority would be added
> above the existing "Highest" priority.
> 
> 
> [I'm going to respond to the wider "priority vs. severity vs. target
> milestones vs. does this all make sense together" discussion in a
> separate email.]
> 


I don't think adding more fields/values is the solution. Perhaps use milestone
for "immediate"?

So both "Get man on the moon (tracking)" and "[Regression] Bike shed should not
be on fire" have highest priority. But one is a regression milestoned for the
current release, and the other is on track for N+2 release or maybe "Future
release".

Besides an "immediate" bug without a milestone doesn't make sense to start with?
If that is possible, there is a missing milestone I guess.

We should make more use of being able to combine and query different fields to
express clarity instead of adding more options that represent a multiple of
values in other fields which then also need to be set separately (Commons
categories comes to mind, like "Category:Blue objects made of recycled glass
hanging upside-down in Amsterdam, Netherlands").

-- Krinkle





_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Reply via email to