Proposal: Bodhi Anonymous Karma

[David Nielsen]

2008/3/30, Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com>:
>
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Josh Boyer <jwboyer <at> gmail.com> 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?


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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20080330/f33887b0/attachment.htm>