<div>2008/3/30, Andrew Farris <<a href="mailto:lordmorgul@gmail.com">lordmorgul@gmail.com</a>>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Kevin Kofler wrote: > Josh Boyer <jwboyer <at> <a href="http://gmail.com">gmail.com</a>> writes: >> I have another proposal I'm in the middle of writing for how to deal >> with negative karma votes. It's essentially "negative karma votes >> require a bugzilla entry". > > That's a bad idea, the reason for a negative karma vote is not always a bug, > for example, packages can be -1ed for reasons like "this shouldn't go out > before package Y goes out, please either add Y to this update or hold it until > the Y update gets pushed". Wouldn't those be logged in users though (or at least.. should be). Maybe only anon negative karma votes should need a bz entry with them?</blockquote><div> It seems a little like requiring a higher threshhold for saying something bad about Fedora than saying something good which certainly is not a desirable signal to send. Also remember an anon negative vote can be -1 (Also affected by about mentioned problem), thus no need for a bz entry but it does give us valuable information in that it is not a single user experiencing this problem - for the kernel e.g. this might be affects multiple archs, multiple configurations of hardware, information the anon user might be encouraged to add to the bugzilla report. </div> </div>