Hi, Sorry I was just slow on the uptake as to what auto-populate meant RE #2.
1. -1, while restricting editing on certain fields or issues that people did not submit themselves is OK I don't think it's reasonable to block edits to subject, or description on issues a user has submitted. Do we actually have a problem that needs solving with restricting edits? I feel like we aren't being harmed right now by the current power people are wielding? 2. B, C, A 3. A 4. -.5, I really don't see Wish as something other then a synonym for low priority. Only -.5 because I don't think it's that harmful either. Ariel On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, at 8:51 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > On 10 Dec 2018, at 16:21, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > RE #1, does this mean if you submit a ticket and you are not a contributor > > you can't modify any of the fields including description or adding/removing > > attachments? > > Attachment operations have their own permissions, like comments. > Description would be prohibited though. I don’t see this as a major > problem, really; it is generally much more useful to add comments. If > we particularly want to make a subset of fields editable there is a > workaround, though I’m not sure anybody would have the patience to > implement it: > https://confluence.atlassian.com/jira/how-can-i-control-the-editing-of-issue-fields-via-workflow-149834.html > > <https://confluence.atlassian.com/jira/how-can-i-control-the-editing-of-issue-fields-via-workflow-149834.html> > > > RE #2, while bugs don't necessarily have a priority it's helpful to have it > > sort logically with other issue types on that field. Seems like ideally > > what we want to preserve is a useful sort order without having to populate > > the field manually. > > Do you have a suggestion that achieves this besides auto-populating (if > that’s even possible)? More than happy to add suggestions to the list. > > > RE #4, Do we need to keep wish at all? > > I’m unclear on what you’re asking? I included exactly this question, > directly in response to your opinion that it should not be kept. If you > have more to add to your earlier view, please feel free to share it. > > > Not voting yet just because I'm not sure on some. > > > > Ariel > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, at 7:43 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > >> New questions. This is the last round, before I call a proper vote on > >> the modified proposal (so we can take a mandate to Infra to modify our > >> JIRA workflows). > >> > >> Thanks again to everyone following and contributing to this discussion. > >> I’m not sure any of these remaining questions are critical, but for the > >> best democratic outcome it’s probably worth running them through the > >> same process. I also forgot to include (1) on the prior vote. > >> > >> 1. Limit edits to JIRA ‘contributor’ role: +1/-1 > >> 2. Priority on Bug issue type: (A) remove it; (B) auto-populate it; (C) > >> leave it. Please rank. > >> 3. Top priority: (A) Urgent; (B) Blocker. See here for my explanation > >> of why I chose Urgent > >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c7b95b827d8da4efc5c017df80029676a032b150ec00bf11ca9c7fa7@%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E > >> > >> <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c7b95b827d8da4efc5c017df80029676a032b150ec00bf11ca9c7fa7@%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E>>. > >> 4. Priority keep ‘Wish’ (to replace issue type): +1/-1 > >> > >> For 2, if we cannot remove it, we can make it non-editable and default > >> to Normal; for auto-populate I propose using Severity (Low->Low, Normal- > >>> Normal, Critical->Urgent). No guarantees entirely on what we can > >> achieve, so a ranked choice would be ideal. > >> > >> I have avoided splitting out another vote on the Platform field, since > >> everyone was largely meh on the question of mandatoriness; it won by > >> only a slim margin, because everyone was +/- 0, and nobody responded to > >> back Ariel’s dissenting view. > >> > >> My votes are: > >> 1: +1 > >> 2: B,C,A > >> 3: A > >> 4: +0.5 > >> > >> > >> For tracking, the new consensus from the prior vote is: > >> 1: A (+10) > >> 2: +9 -0.1 > >> 3: +10 > >> 4: +6 -2 (=+4) > >> 5: +2; a lot of meh. > >> 6: +9 > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 7 Dec 2018, at 17:52, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Late but. > >>> > >>> 1. A > >>> 2. +1 > >>> 3. +1 > >>> 4. -1 > >>> 5. -0 > >>> 6. +1 > >>> > >>> RE 4, I think blocker is an important priority. High and urgent mean the > >>> same thing to me. Wish is fine, but that is too similar to low if you ask > >>> me. My ideal would be low, medium, high, blocker. Medium feels weird, but > >>> it's a real thing, it's not high priority and we really want it done, but > >>> it's not low enough that we might skip it/not get to it anytime soon. > >>> > >>> RE 5. I don't think I have ever used the environment field or used the > >>> contents populated in it. Doesn't mean someone else hasn't, but in terms > >>> of making the easy things easy it seems like making it required isn't so > >>> high value? I don't populate it myself usually I put it in the > >>> description or the subject without thinking. > >>> > >>> It seems like the purpose of a field is to make it indexable and possibly > >>> structured. How often do we search or require structure on this field? > >>> > >>> Ariel > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, at 2:12 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > >>>> Ok, so after an initial flurry everyone has lost interest :) > >>>> > >>>> I think we should take a quick poll (not a vote), on people’s positions > >>>> on the questions raised so far. If people could try to take the time to > >>>> stake a +1/-1, or A/B, for each item, that would be really great. This > >>>> poll will not be the end of discussions, but will (hopefully) at least > >>>> draw a line under the current open questions. > >>>> > >>>> I will start with some verbiage, then summarise with options for > >>>> everyone to respond to. You can scroll to the summary immediately if > >>>> you like. > >>>> > >>>> - 1. Component: Multi-select or Cascading-select (i.e. only one > >>>> component possible per ticket, but neater UX) > >>>> - 2. Labels: rather than litigate people’s positions, I propose we do > >>>> the least controversial thing, which is to simply leave labels intact, > >>>> and only supplement them with the new schema information. We can later > >>>> revisit if we decide it’s getting messy. > >>>> - 3. "First review completed; second review ongoing": I don’t think we > >>>> need to complicate the process; if there are two reviews in flight, the > >>>> first reviewer can simply comment that they are done when ready, and the > >>>> second reviewer can move the status once they are done. If the first > >>>> reviewer wants substantive changes, they can move the status to "Change > >>>> Request” before the other reviewer completes, if they like. Everyone > >>>> involved can probably negotiate this fairly well, but we can introduce > >>>> some specific guidance on how to conduct yourself here in a follow-up. > >>>> - 4. Priorities: Option A: Wish, Low, Normal, High, Urgent; Option B: > >>>> Wish, Low, Normal, Urgent > >>>> - 5. Mandatory Platform and Feature. Make mandatory by introducing new > >>>> “All” and “None” (respectively) options, so always possible to select an > >>>> option. > >>>> - 6. Environment field: Remove? > >>>> > >>>> I think this captures everything that has been brought up so far, except > >>>> for the suggestion to make "Since Version” a “Version” - but that needs > >>>> more discussion, as I don’t think there’s a clear alternative proposal > >>>> yet. > >>>> > >>>> Summary: > >>>> > >>>> 1: Component. (A) Multi-select; (B) Cascading-select > >>>> 2: Labels: leave alone +1/-1 > >>>> 3: No workflow changes for first/second review: +1/-1 > >>>> 4: Priorities: Including High +1/-1 > >>>> 5: Mandatory Platform and Feature: +1/-1 > >>>> 6: Remove Environment field: +1/-1 > >>>> > >>>> I will begin. > >>>> > >>>> 1: A > >>>> 2: +1 > >>>> 3: +1 > >>>> 4: +1 > >>>> 5: Don’t mind > >>>> 6: +1 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 29 Nov 2018, at 22:04, Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> If I read Josh’s reply right, I think the suggestion is to periodically > >>>>> review active labels and promote those that are demonstrably useful to > >>>>> components (cf. folksonomy -> > >>>>> taxonomy<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy#Folksonomy_vs._taxonomy>). > >>>>> I hadn’t read the reply as indicating that labels should be zero’d out > >>>>> periodically. In any case, I agree that reviewing active labels and > >>>>> re-evaluating our taxonomy from time to time sounds great; I don’t > >>>>> think I’d zero them, though. > >>>>> > >>>>> Responding to a few comments: > >>>>> > >>>>> ––– > >>>>> > >>>>> – To Joey’s question about issues languishing in Triage: I like the > >>>>> idea of an SLO for the “triage” state. I am happy to commit time and > >>>>> resources to triaging newly-reported issues, and to JIRA > >>>>> pruning/gardening in general. I spent part of the weekend before last > >>>>> adding components to a few hundred open issues and preparing the > >>>>> Confluence reports mentioned in the other thread. It was calming. We > >>>>> can also figure out how to rotate / share this responsibility. > >>>>> > >>>>> – Labels discussion: If we adopt a more structured component hierarchy > >>>>> to treat as our primary method of organization, keep labels around for > >>>>> people to use as they’d like (e.g., for custom JQL queries useful to > >>>>> their workflows), and periodically promote those that are widely > >>>>> useful, I think that sounds like a fine outcome. > >>>>> > >>>>> – On Sankalp’s question of issue reporter / new contributor burden: I > >>>>> actually think the pruning of fields on the “new issue form” makes > >>>>> reporting issues easier and ensures that information we need is > >>>>> captured. Having the triage step will also provide a nice task queue > >>>>> for screening bugs, and ensures a contributor’s taken a look + screened > >>>>> appropriately (rather than support requests immediately being marked > >>>>> “Critical/Blocker” and assigned a fix version by the reporter). > >>>>> > >>>>> – On Sankalp’s question of the non-committer’s workflow during first > >>>>> pass of review, I think that’s covered here: > >>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals#JIRAWorkflowProposals-Workflow > >>>>> > >>>>> ––– > >>>>> > >>>>> I also want to step back and thank Benedict and Kurt for all of their > >>>>> analysis and information architecture work behind this proposal. > >>>>> "Workflow and bug tracker hygiene” can be a thankless endeavor; I want > >>>>> to make sure this one’s not. Thank you both! > >>>>> > >>>>> If we’re nearing consensus on “keeping labels, and considering them for > >>>>> promotion to components periodically,” are there other items we need to > >>>>> resolve before we generally feel good about the changes? > >>>>> > >>>>> – Scott > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On November 26, 2018 at 3:14:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith > >>>>> (bened...@apache.org<mailto:bened...@apache.org>) wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hmm. On re-reading your earlier email, I realise I may have anyway > >>>>> gotten confused about your suggestion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Are you suggesting we periodically clear any new labels, once we have > >>>>> replacements, and only leave the old ones that exist today and haven’t > >>>>> been categorised? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 23:02, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do we maintain a list of prior rejects? Revisit any that have > >>>>>> increased in usage since last? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Probably we’re bike shedding this one thing too closely. I would be > >>>>>> happy with removing it, periodically cleaning it, or leaving it > >>>>>> intact. Mining it for schema changes, or telling people to ask. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But I fear it will all begin to go to pot again after this effort > >>>>>> wanes, and my life has only one JIRA cleanup effort to call upon. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 18:24, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I'm thinking something like "Every 6 months, we query on labels with > >>>>>>> count > >>>>>>>> = 4 and consider promoting those. Anything < that only shows if > >>>>>>>> people are > >>>>>>> specifically looking for it." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Taking count of occurrence of a label as a proxy for the potential > >>>>>>> value in > >>>>>>> promoting it to something hardened isn't without flaws, but it's also > >>>>>>> not > >>>>>>> awful IMO. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith > >>>>>>> <bened...@apache.org> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all > >>>>>>>>> of us > >>>>>>>>> knowing they're there? =/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It would at least make it easier to triage the ‘new' ones and promote > >>>>>>>> them. The pain of actually categorising the labels was high, and > >>>>>>>> doing > >>>>>>>> that every time would mean it never happens (though maybe there are > >>>>>>>> ways to > >>>>>>>> work around this). I also think there’s value in shedding noisy > >>>>>>>> data, in > >>>>>>>> an active process to promote good hygiene. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But who said our state of mind isn’t also important :) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This isn’t something I’ll fight hard for, though, I can see it’s at > >>>>>>>> least > >>>>>>>> partially a preference for cleanliness. Interested to see what others > >>>>>>>> think. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 17:28, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> An alternative route might be to support labels, and (e.g.) > >>>>>>>>>> bi-annually > >>>>>>>>>> promote any useful ones to the schema, and clear the rest? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> +1 to promoting, probably should case-by-case the clearing (but > >>>>>>>>> mostly > >>>>>>>> just > >>>>>>>>> clear) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The present labels are much too painful to clean up. I categorised > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> top > >>>>>>>>>> 100 or so, and will migrate them (there’s a CSV embedded in the > >>>>>>>>>> proposal > >>>>>>>>>> you can look at). The rest have < 5 occurrences, so I cannot see > >>>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>> value they really provide us. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all > >>>>>>>>> of us > >>>>>>>>> knowing they're there? =/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I _think_ several of your concerns are addressed by the new Triage > >>>>>>>>> state. > >>>>>>>>>> The idea is for users to create a ticket without any field > >>>>>>>>>> requirements. > >>>>>>>>>> Contributors should liaise with the user to understand the > >>>>>>>>>> problem, and > >>>>>>>>>> transition it to Open. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Shit, my bad, totally missed / didn't grok that. That makes a lot > >>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>> sense. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >>>>>>>> bened...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sorry, I failed to respond to point (2) in the aggregate email. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I’m not sure it’s worth complicating the flow for this scenario, > >>>>>>>>>> as the > >>>>>>>>>> ticket can simply return to ‘Patch Available’. But, I’m really > >>>>>>>>>> unsure > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> the best option here. Does anyone else have any strong opinions / > >>>>>>>> thoughts? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 14:33, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I have following initial comments on the proposal. > >>>>>>>>>>> 1. Creating a JIRA should have few fields mandatory like platform, > >>>>>>>>>> version, etc. We want to put less burden on someone creating a > >>>>>>>>>> ticket > >>>>>>>> but I > >>>>>>>>>> feel these are required for opening bugs. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 2. What is the flow when a non committer does the first pass of > >>>>>>>>>>> review? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Joshua McKenzie > >>>>>>>>>>>> <jmcken...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Removal of labels: one of the strengths of the current model > >>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> flexibility for groupings of concepts to arise from a > >>>>>>>>>>>> user-perspective > >>>>>>>>>>>> (lhf, etc). Calcifying the label concepts into components, > >>>>>>>>>>>> categories, > >>>>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>>>>>> is a strict loss of functionality for users to express and > >>>>>>>>>>>> categorize > >>>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>>>> concerns with the project. This feels like an over-correction to > >>>>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>>>> current lack of discipline cleaning up one-off labels. > >>>>>>>> Counter-proposal: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. We beef up the categories and components as proposed and > >>>>>>>>>>>> migrate > >>>>>>>>>>>> labels to those > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. We remove the one-off labels that aren't adding value, > >>>>>>>>>>>> considering > >>>>>>>>>>>> aggregating similar labels > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We leave the "labels" field intact, perhaps with a bit of > >>>>>>>>>>>> guidance > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>> how to effectively use it > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Required fields on transition: assuming these are required > >>>>>>>>>>>> upon > >>>>>>>>>> *issue > >>>>>>>>>>>> creation*, that's placing a significant burden on a user that's > >>>>>>>>>>>> seen > >>>>>>>>>>>> something and wants to open a ticket about it, but isn't sure if > >>>>>>>>>>>> it's > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>> "Semantic Failure" or a "Consistency Failure", for instance. If > >>>>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>>>> is, > >>>>>>>>>>>> instead, a field required for transition to other ticket states > >>>>>>>>>>>> by the > >>>>>>>>>>>> developer working on it, I think that makes sense. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Priority Changes: to be blunt, this looks like shuffling > >>>>>>>>>>>> chairs on > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>> deck of the titanic on this one - in my experience, most users > >>>>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>>>> going > >>>>>>>>>>>> to set the priority on tickets when they open them (hence > >>>>>>>>>>>> default == > >>>>>>>>>> major > >>>>>>>>>>>> and most tickets are opened as major), so this is something that > >>>>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>> either a) left alone so as not to offend those for whom the > >>>>>>>>>>>> priority > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> *actually* major or consistent with the default, or b) changed > >>>>>>>>>>>> by the > >>>>>>>>>> dev > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyway and the added signal from a new "High vs. Urgent" > >>>>>>>>>>>> distinction > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> communication of developer intent to engage with a ticket is > >>>>>>>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>>>> that'll be lost on most users that are just reporting something. > >>>>>>>>>>>> I > >>>>>>>> don't > >>>>>>>>>>>> have a meaningful counter-proposal at this point as the current > >>>>>>>> problem > >>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>> more about UX on this field than the signal / noise on the field > >>>>>>>> itself > >>>>>>>>>> IMO. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> A meta question about the "What and Why" of what we're trying to > >>>>>>>>>> accomplish > >>>>>>>>>>>> here: it sounds like what you're looking at is: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. to capture more information > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. simplify the data entry > >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. nudge people towards more complete and accurate data entry > >>>>>>>>>>>> 4. our ability as a project to measure release quality over time > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> identify when Cassandra is ready for (or due a) release. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The proposal in its current form makes certain strong inroads in > >>>>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>> those 4 metrics, but I think the major thing missing is the UX > >>>>>>>>>>>> of what > >>>>>>>>>>>> we're thinking about changing: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Making it easy for / reduce friction for users to report bugs > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> requests into the project JIRA (easy to do things right, hard to > >>>>>>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>> things > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong) (current proposal is a +1 on "do things right", though I'd > >>>>>>>> argue > >>>>>>>>>>>> against it being *easy*) > >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Asking from the users what they can provide about their > >>>>>>>>>>>> experience > >>>>>>>>>>>> and issues and no more > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophically, are we trying to make it easier for people that > >>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> paid > >>>>>>>>>>>> FT to work on C*, are we trying to make things easier for > >>>>>>>>>>>> *users* of > >>>>>>>> C*, > >>>>>>>>>>>> both, neither? Who are we targeting here w/these project changes > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>>>> of their issues / problems are we trying to improve? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> And lastly: the TLC and management of the JIRA aspects of this > >>>>>>>>>>>> project > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>>>> *definitely* languished (not pointing any fingers here, I'm *at > >>>>>>>>>>>> least* > >>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>>> guilty as anyone on this :) ) - so a big thanks to you and > >>>>>>>>>>>> whomever > >>>>>>>>>> you've > >>>>>>>>>>>> collaborate with in getting this conversation started! > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:39 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >>>>>>>>>> bened...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> We’ve concluded our efforts to produce a proposal for changes > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to the > >>>>>>>>>> JIRA > >>>>>>>>>>>>> workflow, and they can be found here: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals > >>>>>>>>>>>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope there will be broad consensus, but I’m sure it won’t be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> plain > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sailing. It would be great to get a discussion going around the > >>>>>>>>>> proposal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> so please take some time to read and respond if you think you’ll > >>>>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> strong opinion on this topic. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> There remains an undecided question in our initial proposal, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> highlighted in the wiki. Specifically, there was no seemingly > >>>>>>>>>> objective > >>>>>>>>>>>>> winner for the suggested changes to Component (though I have a > >>>>>>>>>> preference, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that I will express in the ensuing discussion). > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Other contentious issues may be: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - The removal of ‘labels’ - which is very noisy, the vast > >>>>>>>>>>>>> majority of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which provide no value, and we expect can be superseded by other > >>>>>>>>>> suggestions > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - The introduction of required fields for certain transitions, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which are new (complexity, severity, bug/feature category) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> - The introduction of some new transitions (Triage, Review in > >>>>>>>> Progress, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Change Requested) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Look forward to hearing your thoughts! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > <mailto:dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > <mailto:dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
