Re: priority of bugs changed...again

On 03/24/2010 09:45 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 6:34 AM, Maciej Stachowiak<mjs@apple.com>  wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>
>>> Here we go again, same as last time, which led to me having to write a
>>> dozen change proposals at once:
>>>
>>> Why were my bugs set to P3 from P2?
>>
>> FYI, it looks like all currently open bugs are P3, except for a handful that
>> I made P1 after consulting with Ian. As mentioned elsewhere, these were bugs
>> relating to ISSUE-31 and ISSUE-79. I assume this is to make room for
>> multiple levels of elevated priority, should that be necessary. Perhaps we
>> should just make P3 the default for our bugzilla components, since mass
>> priority changes result in bugzilla spam and seem to annoy people. I don't
>> know if that's possible on a technical level.
>
> Perhaps this just demonstrates that the tasks are too much for one
> person and it is time to add more HTML5 editors. It would make more
> sense to progress and fix things to the satisfaction of the parties,
> than play with the bug statuses.

A few points:

Overall, I do have a concern that the priorities as set by the editor do 
not match the priorities as perceived by the co-chairs.  But I see that 
as a fault of the co-chairs for not collecting and providing that 
information, not a fault of the editor.

Second, be aware that all three co-chairs are involved in F2F standards 
meetings this week, and that has impacted our ability to make quick 
responses.  But as you may have seen, despite this we WILL act quickly 
and in concert to address egregious issues of decorum.  Which leads me 
in to my third point:

Given what is currently going on, I will ask you to be particularly 
careful.  Use of the word "play" here is distracting.

Finally, you have brought up the idea of additional editors before.  We 
have been, and continue to seek additional editors.  Unless you are 
volunteering or know of a volunteer, bringing this point up again serves 
no purpose.  In fact, I will ask you not to do so unless you have new 
information.

>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>
> Shelley

- Sam Ruby

Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2010 17:36:05 UTC