[teampractices] Scrum-y tools based on BZ (was Re: Scrumbu.gs)

[James Forrester]

On 31 October 2013 23:07, Rob Lanphier <robla at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Matthew Flaschen <
> mflaschen at wikimedia.org> 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.

jforrester at wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20131101/ef608b6a/attachment-0001.html>