Re: Processed: should have been reassigned not closed (or bugs I agree with)
>>"Chris" == Chris Waters <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Chris> Wichert Akkerman <email@example.com> writes:
>> Okay, let me step in here and stir up the fire. What Ian is running into
>> here seems to be that some bugs just aren't `sexy' enough for lack of a
>> better term. If a proposal is obviously correct there is no discussion
>> and will die silently unless the submitter has the time to personally
>> go through the whole policy-change process and make sure it gets in.
Chris> I think this used to work better when joeyh was posting his weekly
Chris> policy summary reports. Then people could see at a glance which
Chris> perfectly decent proposals were on the bubble because of minimal
Chris> interest. Maybe we could find someone willing to pick up this task
I agree. The problem is that the un-sexy bugs just slip off
peoples horizon; and something like a weekly report,
especially on that mentioetioned idle time, would entice people to
make the extra effort.
Look at how much response there is to the RC bug postings.
Also, if the time deadlines are used correctly, to weed out
the noise in the BTS, this list should not be hard to maintain.
I guess this could be the bailliwick of the person niminally
in charge, since it is unfair to put this additional task on Joey
Hess (he has better things to do, maybe).
"It is important to keep an open mind, but not so open that your
brains fall out." Stephen A. Kallis, Jr.
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C