Re: automatic accidental style voice: too many written accidentals

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 01:43:59PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:

>> A response time of a week is a sign that the mechanism is not working
>> out.
>
> We *don't* have a response time of a week.  Currently the only
> person who has shown the slightest bit of interest doing this job
> does it an average of once every two weeks.

So the mechanism is not working out.

>> Things like weeding out duplicates can happen at a
>> slower time span.  It is also possible to put a bug into a
>> database with a state "pending", "unverified" or similar.  That
>> gives a better impression than a black hole.
>
> I do not agree with making the issue tracker open to everybody.
> We'll get tons of uninformed users posting non-bugs.

So the idea of the current setup is actually to keep the number of users
posting bug reports down?  Why?  If you feel you should be able to
ignore bug reports by uninformed users, tell your issue tracker view to
omit showing "unverified" issues.

Sure, if everybody does that, the unverified issues will start piling
up, but at some point of time somebody who _does_ see the reports
_might_ engage in a burst of activity sorting them.

The current workflow favors just letting issues get lost on the mailing
list.

>> The results are not encouraging to contributors.
>
> Maybe you didn't notice the above note.  I WOULD ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO
> OFFER TO HELP WITH THE WORK.

Anybody would be in a better situation to help with the work if it were
visible as "unverified" in the bug tracker, and if it was not reduced to
the personal responsibility of a single person to do something.

It is easier to get people to do a bit of work when they are in the mood
rather than get somebody who volunteers to be _responsible_ until
further notice.

-- 
David Kastrup