Excuse me, but your opinion is simply unimportant. Start over and you can expect more of the same.

users
#41

Hi Marc,

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35361

...

that you knew you are creating extra work for the volunteers on the QA
team with intend is really disgusting given the workload of this team.

  I suspect that what upset Bjoern (and upsets me too) is where you
wrote:

Marc Grober wrote:

My response IS NOT productive (as was initially noted in this list,
lol) but isn't it so much fun to be passive aggressive?

  It saddens me that you would deliberately waste people's time and act
aggressively towards volunteers who are trying their hardest to improve
the product, and get a clearer view of the open bugs. We try hard to
attract QA volunteers, and it's unusual to see fights in bugzilla.

  Please consider a more constructive approach - if you disagree with
what QA is doing, then get involved - argue in a winsome way for a
better approach, invest your time to make things better.

  In my experience, Free Software is more easily improved by showing how
things can be done better: submitting patches, doing the hard-work in
bugzilla, etc. than by criticism from the sidelines.

  Thanks !

    Michael.

#42

I've read it a couple of times over the years - and concluded that it's
a minefield: of licensing - bundling GPL pieces, of odd requests:
"please checkin this binary into your source code revision control", and
worse.

  It requires some real thought, research and unwinding to get it right.
It is not a trivial matter of "just shove XYZ file into your
distribution" - while that may work, it is not a sustainable way to
develop software.

  Please don't think that because your bug is not commented on that it is
not considered. In general I like to provide some positive input in bugs
rather than the above. As such, we need to find someone to do the hard
work to get the code provenance unwound, and grok the situation as to
what can be included and how.

  Since I don't have the time to do that now, and I know of no-one that
does, it looks set to continue to remain open; at least until someone is
motivated to do the necessary work. It looks just like a lot of other
nice-to-have features we want but can't yet resource.

  All the best,

    Michael.

#43

leif wrote:

Half the problem is communication.

Very much to the point.

1) simply commenting a bug does _not_ remove NEEDINFO status - in
    this case, only if the submitter had commented _and_ changed
    status to NEW, the bugs wouldn't have been closed
2) exposing users to the technicalities of a bugtracking system
    will frustrate people on either side, every other time

As much as the version field, the status field might be confusing.
Let's collectively learn from that, and improve things going
forward. Sorry for the mess - but I would hate us arguing over
spilled milk, instead of moving ahead.

Thanks all for the valuable feedback,

-- Thorsten

#44

+1
These are the most well spoken words in this case so far :slight_smile:

Cheers,
Leif

#45

Hi Michael and all,
May I suggest that we try to close down the discussion and try to find an
acceptable approach?

I believe that Michaels earlier mail explained the context and (as I read
it) also include a small *apologize*.

I suggest that

   - we send a polite and excusing mail to all the involved bug submitters
   explaining the reason for the action taken and the flow behind the bug
   handling. Also explaining that we might have closed some issues that
   shouldn't have been closed - and that we are sorry about that. In such case
   ask the original submitter to reopen the issue.
   - we implement procedures in the future to avoid repetition of this
   misunderstanding
   - we all put this behind us and get to work :wink:

Cheers,
Leif

#46

Hi :)+1 Regards fromTom :slight_smile:

#47

Michael,

No one is upset that a bug almost two years was not resolved.

The file in question appeared to have been dropped (in other words, it
was in the product, and then it wasn't), and we could find no
explanation for why it was dropped, which suggests that somewhere there
is a QA issue, but that is another problem altogether, isn't it? We
did our best to document the existence of the file over the course of
various incarnations and branches of the software and waited for some
dev to confirm what we had found and respond to our suggestions.

The frustration arose over the fact that the only documented review of
the bug by anyone other than reporters was "procedural". My comments
regarding passive aggressiveness had to do with the repeated fiddling of
the file without the file getting assigned for any review in a manner
that did not appear in any way to move the process forward. That works
both ways, and if someone wants respect for moving something forward,
there should likewise be some respect for those documenting the bugs.

As far as your recommendation, "Please don't think that because your bug
is not commented on that it is not considered", I respectfully suggest
that that is just what one should think, in as much as that is what
happens in any tracker I have ever been involved in. The bug gets
assigned to a Dev (I believe this bug never was) and an analysis is done
(and there was no analysis done in that I believe it was never
assigned.) Had it been assigned I am sure the assignee would have
reviewed the comments, looked at the files referenced, and commented in
the bug, addressing priority, issues, etc. I don't think anyone
reporting on the bug was willing to go further until someone from the
Dev team provided some review and guidance, which, of course, was not
forthcoming.

More importantly from a project (engineering, lol) standpoint, however,
a review without comment means that the time reviewed is arguably lost
to the project because there is then no record of the results of that
review. I have dealt in other projects with inconsistent licensing
(using one issue you mention), and when a dev has commented that
licensing needed to be aligned I have addressed that. But there has been
no such analysis documented in this item (again, arguaby because it was
never assigned to anyone.)

I am done with it. I had hoped to make a point and move on (prompted in
no small part by the suggestion that the foundation take zotero under
its aegis), and but for my take on incremental issues regarding lack of
proper contextual help in the tracker, I would have. But as I have
tried to suggest, respect is a two way street. Will I move my systems to
AOO? I don't know yet. But I won't be reporting any more bugs.

#48

+1 & +1