[Libreoffice-qa] New text for NEEDINFO Changes

Kieran Peckett crazyskeggy at gmail.com
Mon Apr 22 11:40:59 PDT 2013

On 22 April 2013 19:15, Bjoern Michaelsen
<bjoern.michaelsen at canonical.com>wrote:

> Hi,
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 01:57:32PM -0400, Robinson Tryon wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Kieran Peckett <crazyskeggy at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > It has been 180 days (6 months) since we asked you for more information
> > > about this bug. We will be waiting for information a further 30 days (1
> > > month) before closing this bug.
> > >
> > > For more information, go to: [link goes here]
> >
> > The shorter the message, the more likely people are to read it :-)
> OTOH most of these bug have been idling a long time and the reporter will
> get
> it via email (you have to assume he is not one of us checking bz daily).
> A very short and strict message might thus be easily taken as offense
> ("first
> you do nothing for 6 months and then you threaten to close this with one
> casual
> sentence")

Workaround maybe: Reminder after 1/2 month/s, close after 6/7 months
(change either as appropriate) - maybe add another reminder at about 3-4
months? In a smaller Open Source project I work on, the reporter doesn't
always get the comment asking for info, and doesn't realise until we
invalidate the bug after 14 days, after which they respond, often
explaining that they didn't seem to get the email. I know this is quite a
large project, but is 7 months a bit long to wait, especially for some
questions like "Which version of LibreOffice are you using?" or "Which
Operating System are you using?" - would just bumping the topic after a
month or two of silence help?

> -- I like the cautious wording by Joel, personally -- it helps
> someone who is not a daily contributor(*) to get some context and makes
> clear its
> nothing personal or done out of disrespect.
> Again: You have to think of the message as an email, not as a bugzilla
> comment,
> because thats how the receiver sees it.

However, they will try to find the gist of the e-mail, and going too formal
like Joel's original text, can make the user less likely to read it, and
using technical terms like "NEEDINFO" can make it look, especially to the
less technically literate, that the e-mail is being aimed at other

> Best,
> Bjoern
> (*) if he were, his bug wouldnt be struck in NEEDINFO for 6 month ;)

Hope my comments help in this debate, rather than slowing the
implementation down.

QA & Documentation volunteer
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice-qa/attachments/20130422/c08bd520/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Libreoffice-qa mailing list