UI module owner

[Gervase Markham]

Benton, Kevin wrote:
> Obviously, however, without empirical data, I believe that there enough
> forks out there to at least consider what impact it will have.  I
> believe it should be our goal to find out why others have forked and
> find out if there are things we should be doing that make sense to
> implement so those entities that have forked can re-join us in the main
> code line.

I completely agree with that. The things other people have been forced
to change is good evidence for usage patterns, and what we should make
easier.

> I'm not looking at the original, but I can certainly say that there are
> times when a requirement is just that - a requirement.  If a product
> doesn't meet certain requirements, the product is unusable for the
> potential customer's (user's) purpose.  Does that mean it can't be
> adapted?  Generally, no.  Sometimes, however, the cost of adapting is
> too great, thus making the product unusable to the customer.

True - but at least, with Bugzilla, you have the right and ability to adapt.

>> All in all, not a good start as a basis for arguing for a particular
>> change.
> 
> It's not?  It seems to have gotten a good discussion going. :)

I meant that particular paragraph that I was taking apart :-)

>> Are you suggesting that we should fully integrate Mozilla-specific
>> customisations into the stock Bugzilla, so they serve as better
>> examples? (That might be a reasonable thing to suggest.) If not, what
>> are you suggesting we change about the current method of bundling?
> 
> Why not?  It seems to me that the guided template method would appeal to
> most admins and new users.

But the "guidance" is very specific to the Mozilla project. Wouldn't
they'd be better off writing a new template using that one for inspiration?

Remember, the mechanism and the existence of the template are in the
docs. It's not like it's hidden away in a "samples" directory somewhere.

Gerv