<html><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-15"><META name="Author" content="Novell GroupWise WebAccess"></head><body style='font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; '>Hi Petr, The blocker criteria would be quite useful ;-) Thank you! For the process to nominate a blocker, is there a specific reason to report a nomination twice (1 in mailing list, 2 in bugzilla)? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You may nominate blocker bugs using the <a href="mailto:libreoffice@lists.freedesktop.org" class="external text" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">libreoffice</a> mailing list. Please use the subject: <pre>Nominating bug xxxx as blocker for LibO-X.Y.Z release </pre> You should also add a dependency to the meta bug: <ul><li>LibO-3.3 - bug <a href="https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31865" class="external text" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">#31865</a> </li></ul> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A potential problem of the twice nominating is reporter may forget to do another process after finishing one step. e.g. what if he/she only sends a mail and forget comment on Bugzilla? Then more documentation effort will be needed to keep 2 sets of information 'sync'. A uniform reporting path might make it more manageable. Can we just add libreoffice mailing list to a CC list of the meta bug or something like that. Since the release version is included in the Meta bug title, we would not be likely missing new blocker information in the mailing list. For the detailed bug list, we just need to check the dependency fields by clicking meta bug URL inside the mail. Best wishes, Yifan </body></html>