The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

[Mike A. Harris]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2005 at 01:50:14PM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> 
>>The psychological effects of saying "WONT", "CANT", "DONT",
>>"NOT*" are to stimulate a negative experience in the mind
>>of the reader, and should be avoided if at all possible.
> 
> 
> This would lend support to using "DEFERRED".
> 
> Anyway, thanks everyone for your comments. For right now, I'm going to leave
> all the bugs in NEEDINFO state while I reflect on everything.

I disagree.  DEFERRED == PROCRASTINATED_WITH_NO_ACTUAL_TARGET

If something is going to be done, it should be left open, and
assigned to an active target tracking bug, such as FC4Target,
FC5Target, etc. and an explicit "goal" defined for that target.

Example:

Target: FC5Target
Goal:   Examine this issue during FC5 development and make a
         further decision as to wether to dump it, or do it.  If
         the decision is made at that time to "do it", a solid
         decisive plan will be made with timelines.


"DEFERRED" essentially amounts to "indefinitely procrastinated
with no goal or solid decision being made".  Our team have
specifically been avoiding such indecision as much as possible
for the last 6 months or so, trying to make solid decisions
with each phase of a bug's life, to both reduce the active bug
list, and to reduce the lifespan of bugs to a minimum.

If we know we are going to do something, or feel that it is
something plausible, we should be able to give it a specific
target - even if that target is just for the purpose of
determining what is next.  On the other side, if we know we
are -not- going to do something, we've decided to close the
issue ASAP, with a reasonably worded comment.

This has worked rather well in practice for our team at least
to date.  Negative customer/user response has been almost
nonexistant, which leads me to believe what we're doing is
fairly successful in reaching our goal.

YMMV of course...