Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead

[Corey Burger]

On 3/7/06, James Henstridge <james.henstridge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 07/03/06, Ian Jackson <ian at davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > James Henstridge writes ("Re: Directing submitter to use upstream channels instead"):
> > > On 28/02/06, Ian Jackson <ian at davenant.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > If all upstream bugs should be open in Ubuntu then something should
> > > > open them (probably, Launchpad automatically).  If, on the other hand,
> > > > most bugs shouldn't be open - in particular, if only a small subset of
> > > > upstream bugs should be recorded against Ubuntu - then there should be
> > > > a way to close a bug that was opened in Ubuntu's bugtracker but which
> > > > it has now been decided should not have been reported there.
> > >
> > > If a bug is not appropriate or applicable to Ubuntu, then the Ubuntu
> > > bug task would be rejected.  The other bug tasks would remain linked
> > > to the remote bugs.
> > >
> > > Does that help clear up the multiple bug tasks model for you?
> >
> > Thanks, that's a nice clarification of the confusion about the model.
> > I'm glad that you agree with me that this bug task should not remain
> > open, and that you therefore (apparently) disagree with what Christian
> > and Bjorn said earlier.
> >
> > However, that leaves unanswered my main point, which is that using
> > `status rejected' for this meaning is unfortunate.  As I wrote
> > in my initial message:
> >
> >  IMO `rejected' is wrong because it implies that the original report is
> >  somehow defective.  It is a (relatively mild) implied criticism of the
> >  submitter's decision to file the bug in the first place.  Sometimes
> >  this is appropriate, and that's when `rejected' is right.  `Rejected'
> >  to me means `this should not have been filed in the first place and
> >  the submitter should have known that', and rejecting a bug in this way
> >  (with a polite explanation) is part of the process of educating the
> >  community.
>
> Remember that statuses like unconfirmed, confirmed, fixed, rejected,
> etc apply to bug tasks in Malone rather than bugs.  If the bug only
> has a single task (as most do), then this distinction is not
> particularly important
>
> In the case of a bug with multiple tasks, if you mark the Ubuntu
> specific task as rejected you are only rejecting the bug in context of
> Ubuntu.  The status of the other tasks on the bug would reflect those
> other contexts.
>
>
> >  However in this case the situation is quite different.  The bug report
> >  is quite true and appropriate, and no criticism of the submitter is
> >  implied by my decision to spend our limited effort elsewhere.  It
> >  would be nice to be able to close a report (strictly, in LP-speak, a
> >  task) with something along the lines of `we agree that this would be
> >  nice but we are not going to spend any effort on it in the context of
> >  Ubuntu'.
> >
> > So it would seem to me that what I'm asking for is a new status other
> > than `rejected' and `fixreleased'; say `status notforus'.
>
> I think the rejected status fits your use case quite well.  If the bug
> is "not for us", then it has been rejected in the context of Ubuntu,
> but may still be open or fixed in the context of upstream or Debian.
>
> If people take offence to this, then the two options I'd prefer to explore are:
>  1. education about what the statuses mean.
>  2. alter the UI to reduce the chance of misinterpretation.
>
> A number of sites using bugzilla take option (2) and rename some of
> the resolutions that end up offending users (e.g. WORKSFORME and
> WONTFIX), so this might be worth investigating.
>
> James.

>From a purely social standpoint, I find the term Rejected to be a bad
one. In an environment where we are trying to encourage people,
rejectng anything is bad idea and not be taken lightly. I also think
Worksforme is terrible wording as well, due to the implied statement
about the reporter.

However, that being said, I am stuck for a nice wording on this.
NotUbuntu seems to me to be the best that has been suggested, as it
says nothing about the reporter.

Corey