Another side effect of closing a ticket with Declined, is that it doesn't
show up in search (because it's closed and closed tickets are omitted by
default). But if the problem or desire for the feature still exists, it is
likely to be reported again by users via a new ticket and other people then
have to go duplicate hunting. So that creates more duplicates to weed
through.
And when I work on something, I often take a look at boards and see if
there is anything else in the same area that might need work, or I use the
tickets to get a feeling of the direction that people want us to go. When
declined is mixed with "we can't work on this right now", that makes it a
lot harder to do that as well.
So i think Stalled is better. The problem with that can be that such
tickets show up in workboards, which can create a lot of load in the
browser if there are a lot of tickets. If we would tag all of such tickets
with something like 'need-volunteer', a team could customise their work
board filter to exclude all tickets with that tag. Or simply exclude the
entire status, but then you cannot effectively use it within the team
either. We do have to make that need-volunteer tag somewhat better defined
in the bug lifecycle and the tag's description in that case. That tag
started out more as an "opportunities for volunteers". Alternative is a new
"no-resourcing" tag. or something.
DJ
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 1:03 PM Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote:
My two cents:
I would personally make those type of tickets as "stalled",
"stalled"
basically for me means blocked and these type of tasks are blocked on human
resources, some miracles might happen and we might end up having enough
resources to unblock it but until that day it's stalled IMO.
OTOH there are tickets that we don't have resources to work on it and we
never will, imagine a ticket with title "Rewrite mediawiki", it sounds good
as lots of part of it is old but we will never have such resource to do it.
IMO, we should call it declined on grounds of not having resources. Same
goes for "Every user should have a personal private wiki": We don't have
hardware resources for that and probably never will.
Best
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 7:27 AM Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm grateful for this largely civil and
productive discussion. I'd like
to
suggest that the multiple sub-topics being
discussed here might be easier
to follow if the entire discussion is moved to a wiki talk page, such as
on
MediaWiki.org. I am not attempting to halt
discussion or to tell people
to
stop writing to the mailing list; moving to a
wiki talk page is just a
suggestion.
Thanks,
Pine
(
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l