How to Triage: Draft posted on wiki

[Adam Williamson]

On Mon, 2009-03-23 at 14:50 -0400, Christopher Beland wrote:
> After Adam's comments, I changed the advice for 2-in-1 bugs to point to
> the stock reply (which asks reporters to do the split), and updated
> that reply to be more polite and informative.
> 
> So this leaves the following decisions to make at the meeting:
> * "Option 1", "Option 2" or other text for "How to Handle Bugs in
>   Multiple Versions" section?

I guess Option 1 seems to be mostly preferred, so I'm OK with that one.

> * Should a check for bugs filed in upstream Bugzillas be mandatory?
> * Should triagers decide whether a bug should be handled upstream or
>   by Fedora, or should this be left to package maintainers?

I think we should probably discuss this with the maintainers rather than
coming to a unilateral decision on it.

> * Should NEW triagers be asked to do NEEDINFO updates in 30 and 60
>   days if needed, or should this be left to triagers following the
>   NEEDINFO checklist?

I think we should ask triagers to take responsibility for following up
their own triaged bugs. We can have procedures to catch cases where this
isn't done, but I'm really not a fan, as I've written, of drive-by
triaging.

> * After these issues are decided, is this draft ready to go live?
> 
> Suggested improvements which might be implemented before or after
> deployment:
> * Add references to GreaseMonkey buttons in checklist instructions

I'll do this later today, with reference to mcepl's shiny new generation
script.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net