REMIND and LATER considered harmful [was Re: RESOLVED]

[Benton, Kevin]

> Isn't that what comments are for?
>
> status: Pending
>
> comment: I need more info from...
>
> just my 2 cents,

Yes and no.  Part of process management involves knowing why a
particular item is being held up.  So, for example, if a status is
Pending and the reason is Customer Information, the clock stops
completely.  If, on the other hand, a bug is put into Pending status,
and it's something within our control, the clock may or may not stop -
Pending Priority doesn't stop the clock, but Pending Bug Resolution
would (assuming that the bug it depends on is being worked on).

Can the system be fooled?  Of course.  Using it effectively depends on
the people using it in a responsible manner.  At least by providing a
method for accountability, the opportunity is there and since we're all
adults at the place I work at, we can generally be trusted to follow
proper process.

---
Kevin Benton
Perl/Bugzilla Developer
Advanced Micro Devices
 
The opinions stated in this communication do not necessarily reflect the
view of Advanced Micro Devices and have not been reviewed by management.
This communication may contain sensitive and/or confidential and/or
proprietary information.  Distribution of such information is strictly
prohibited without prior consent of Advanced Micro Devices.  This
communication is for the intended recipient(s) only.  If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender, then
destroy any remaining copies of this communication.

Benton, Kevin wrote:

>>From a process monitoring perspective, "NEEDINFO" by itself isn't
enough
>from my point of view.  There are other reasons a bug may be in a
>PENDING state besides a need for additional information.
>
>---
>Kevin Benton
>Perl/Bugzilla Developer
>Advanced Micro Devices
> 
>The opinions stated in this communication do not necessarily reflect
the
>view of Advanced Micro Devices and have not been reviewed by
management.
>This communication may contain sensitive and/or confidential and/or
>proprietary information.  Distribution of such information is strictly
>prohibited without prior consent of Advanced Micro Devices.  This
>communication is for the intended recipient(s) only.  If you have
>received this communication in error, please notify the sender, then
>destroy any remaining copies of this communication.
> 
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org
>[mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org] On Behalf Of timeless
>Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:12 PM
>To: developers at bugzilla.org
>Subject: Re: REMIND and LATER considered harmful [was Re: RESOLVED]
>
>Gregary Hendricks wrote:
>  
>
>>For this we, as well as a number of bugzillae, have implemented a
>>NEEDINFO status. Along with it we have an added field of who we
>>    
>>
> > need information from (reporter, last commentor, or someone else
> > entirely) who is then CC'd on the bug for the duration that the bug
> > is in the NEEDINFO state. This places the responsibility of the bug
> > squarely on the shoulders of the info provider until they come back
> > with the additional information. This really helps in the processing
> > of a bug as it is obvious by the status that no work can be
> > completed until someone (usually the reporter) comes back with
> > something more than was initially provided.
>
>i much prefer this (both ideally and having seen it) over all the other

>forms suggested in this thread.
>
>-
>To view or change your list settings, click here:
><http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=kevin.benton@amd.com>
>
>
>
>-
>To view or change your list settings, click here:
><http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=micklweiss@gmx.net>
>
>
>  
>

-
To view or change your list settings, click here:
<http://bugzilla.org/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=kevin.benton@amd.com>