Realized I forgot to include the Code of Conduct link ([1] below): http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct
On 04/16/2016 11:53 AM, Thomas Ward wrote: > Teo, > > On 04/16/2016 11:28 AM, Teo Tei wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'd like to bring your attention to the harmful conduct of a user >> handling bugs in Launchpad. >> >> There's this "dino99", who is closing several bug reports just >> "because they are old", regardless of whether they are fixed or not. I >> think he should be stopped before he keeps doing damage. > I think this needs to be evaluated from a bug triage procedure point > of view. > > When a report is filed against an old release and not yet fixed, but > the report hasn't been updated with comments indicating the issue is > either fixed or still existent in the future releases, I would mark as > "Incomplete" with a canned comment similar to "The reported release > for this bug is now past End of Life, and is no longer supported for > that release. It is unclear if this bug still exists or not, so I am > marking the bug as Incomplete. If this issue is still confirmed in a > currently-supported release of Ubuntu, then please make a comment to > that effect, and set the bug status to New." > > I am not going to look through all your bugs, but the typical triage > procedure *is* to Close or Invalid or Incomplete (or Won't Fix for > series-targeted task items) EOL-release bugs. Back a couple years > after Karmic went End of Life, I went through and, with the API, mass > closed at least 70 bugs still targeted to the Karmic release. > > They are not being abusive, nor are they being an 'idiot'. They're > being annoying, perhaps, but they are not entirely wrong with > EOL-release bugs. >> I have seen half a dozen bugs which I had reported myself ages ago, >> closed in the last few days by this guy. So I have re-checked some of >> those issues, and every single one of them still exists unfixed. >> >> I believe closing bugs without verifying them, just because they are >> old and haven't been acted upon, is a demential and harmful conduct. >> Bugs shouldn't be closed unless it is verified that they are fixed or >> invalid. > That's not the task of everyone - ideally, yes, everyone would test, > but it's not a requirement in all cases, especially when going through > and just targeting EOL-release issues in mass. > > As I stated before, I mass-close bugs at times when it's an EOL > release - and make a canned comment saying "Mark this as 'New' if it > still happens in a later release, and make a comment as such". I also > make a note that it is an automated mass-close executed by the API, or > such, and therefore they know I'm doing it as a mass-task. > > While that may not apply here, it still is valid to make note that you > can always make a comment without being rude that the issue still > exists, and ask for the bug to be reopened. Or, you can file a new > bug if the bug is *really* old, so we get updated apport information, etc. >> Even worse, after I have wasted my time re-checking the issues >> (something he should have done before closing them in the first place) >> and verifying that they still exist in the current version of Ubuntu, >> and hence have re-opened the issues, he insists in closing them. >> Apparently he thinks I (or whoever reported the issue originally) >> should file a new identical bug report, which seems to me a ridiculous >> waste of time. > See my comment earlier. >> Have a look at this: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/firefox/+bug/747197 >> and other issues recently closed by dino99 and/or commented by teo1978 >> (whcih is me). >> >> In the case of the abovementioned issue, dino99 in his last comment >> includes a link to some unrelated stuff which I don't know if he >> thinks has some relation with the issue itself (which he must not have >> read, because it doesn't) or with his threat to "act". It looks like >> he's mentally ill or something. >> >> P.S.: I suggest that you don't waste your time replying to this >> message because I am not going to look at the messages in this mailing >> list and hence am very unlikely to read any reply. > How fortunate "Reply All" exists, so it goes directly to you in > addition to the mailing list. > > Because, while everything I said above still applies, you said > something on the bug you linked that I may consider against the Ubuntu > Code of Conduct - to quote from your comment on Bug 747197: "Is dino99 > a bot or a retarded person?" The Code of Conduct [1] states in it two > big issues of which you didn't do here: Be Considerate, Be > Respectful. You didn't do that, and went on the offensive, and were > VERY rude with using swear words, etc. Don't do that - it's not in > line with the Code of Conduct, and that is a very big no-no. > > In the off chance you don't want to read everything, the points are as > follows: > > 1. I don't see abuse here - they're not idiotic, they're just trying > to clean up old ancient bugs that are against EOL releases, and > haven't yet been marked as being affecting a later release. > > 2. This doesn't mean the user is an 'idiot' or being abusive. That's > your opinion because they're your bugs - that isn't a valid > opinion overall. > > 3. You were fairly rude, in a way against the Code of Conduct. Try > and be courteous to people in the future. Your email also echoes > these violations of the Code of Conduct, by calling the user an > "idiot" here in the subject line. > > > ------ > Thomas Ward > LP: ~teward > Ubuntu Server Team Member > Ubuntu Bug Squad and Bug Control Member > -- Ubuntu-quality mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
