The impending end of FC2 NEEDINFO bugs...

Mike A. Harris mharris at
Wed Jun 8 21:55:28 UTC 2005

Stephen J. Smoogen wrote:
>>NEEDINFO -> no reply -> WONTFIX : that really is the most true
>>resolution. Without feedback, the bug won't be fixed because it won't be
>>examined further. Just explain that when closing the ticket. Keep in mind
>>that the reporter can reopen the ticket as soon as new feedback is
> Actually a better resolution would be
> CANTFIX_WO_INFO (resting).
> or just
> This is a better answer in some cases to WONTFIX... but leads to even
> more bugzilla choices... (Some anthropologist looking at this in 100
> years will say "Bugzilla users like eskimos had 200 ways of saying

This is a perfect example of what I was refering to as
negative/reactive versus positive/proactive.

CANT/WONT/DONT/NOT are reactive/negative words, so if you
say "CANTFIX_WITHOUT_INFO", you're really saying a negatively
worded form of what can be stated more proactively as: 

However, "CANFIX" implies that you (or someone) "can" actually
fix the issue, which in reality may not be true.  As such, I would
refrain from using CANFIX.  Proactivity focuses on stating what
you will do, so I would use something like:


Again, some may argue pedantics here, but there is sound scientific
evidence of the psychology behind this stuff.  I've directly seen
a change in response from users/customers by changing the language
used in response to bug reports to be much more proactive, and it
does very much pay off.

The easy thing to do is instead of telling the person what we can
not do, or will not do - but to focus on what we _WILL_ do, and 
when/how/why/etc.   It is sometimes a bit challenging to word things
in this manner if one is used to using reactionary language a lot,
but it gets easier over time.  ;o)

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list