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 <jmatazzoni(a)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
jmatazzoni(a)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.aharoni(a)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 * The component is no longer maintained (this is often done as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(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