Declined = WONTFIX (e.g. if some talented developer wrote a patch, and the patch was perfect, you would still -2 it because the functionality is not wanted/stupid/etc)
Invalid = not a real bug. That should include things like spam, stuff where the reporter is mistaken ( can't reproduce or if someone say reports a sharepoint bug) I think the defining difference is its possible to write a patch for a declined bug, even though it would be rejected, where an invalid bug by definition is unfixable. Just my 2 cents, others may have different definitions. -- Brian p.s. ive never liked the "need volunteer" term for lowest priority - I have always felt it had offensive implications as if volunteer time isnt as important so they get the low priority bugs. On Tuesday, October 2, 2018, Joe Matazzoni <jmatazz...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > I agree with Amir’s understanding. "Declined” is basically for ideas whose proper timing is never. Valid ideas that we just aren’t going to work on any time soon should go in a backlog or freezer or some such, where they can await until some future project or other development makes them relevant (at least theoretically). > > All of which does raise a slightly different question: I am much less clear on what the exact difference is between “Invalid” and “Declined.” Thoughts? > > Best, > Joe > _____________________ > > Joe Matazzoni > Product Manager, Collaboration > Wikimedia Foundation, San Francisco > mobile 202.744.7910 > jmatazz...@wikimedia.org > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." > > > > >> On Oct 2, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I sometimes see WMF developers and product managers marking tasks as >> "Declined" with comments such as these: >> * "No resources for it in (team name)" >> * "We won't have the resources to work on this anytime soon." >> * "I do not plan to work on this any time soon." >> >> Can we perhaps agree that the "Declined" status shouldn't be used like this? >> >> "Declined" should be valid when: >> * The component is no longer maintained (this is often done as >> mass-declining). >> * A product manager, a developer, or any other sensible stakeholder thinks >> that doing the task as proposed is a bad idea. There are also variants of >> this: >> * The person who filed the tasks misunderstood what the software component >> is supposed to do and had wrong expectations. >> * The person who filed the tasks identified a real problem, but another >> task proposes a better solution. >> >> It's quite possible that some people will disagree with the decision to >> mark a particular task as "Declined", but the reasons above are legitimate >> explanations. >> >> However, if the task suggests a valid idea, but the reason for declining is >> that a team or a person doesn't plan to work on it because of lack of >> resources or different near-term priorities, it's quite problematic to mark >> it as Declined. >> >> It's possible to reopen tasks, of course, but nevertheless "Declined" gives >> a somewhat permanent feeling, and may cause good ideas to get lost. >> >> So can we perhaps decide that such tasks should just remain Open? Maybe >> with a Lowest priority, maybe in something like a "Freezer" or "Long term" >> or "Volunteer needed" column on a project workboard, but nevertheless Open? >> >> -- >> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי >> http://aharoni.wordpress.com >> “We're living in pieces, >> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
