On 11/12/13 3:53 AM, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-11 at 11:33 -0700, Ken Springer wrote:
After using LO for awhile, I found and filed a couple of bugs/issues. I
wanted to contribute in the area of reporting issues, but I don't have
the knowledge to fix them. I didn't expect those problems to go to the
head of the line. But I *did* expect them to be put in the queue and
The problem of course is that there is no queue of bugs-to-fix. We try
to prioritize issues, so that we can see those that are seriously
debilitating and then try to fix those on a best-effort basis.
Maybe there should be a queue, and fixed on a FIFO basis. Are either of
my posted bugs, or the ones that I listed in another post debilitating?
No. Would I expect mine to be fixed before X number of debilitating
bugs? Not in a million years. But they need to be fixed eventually,
and not languish until the end of time. LOL
More than once, it's mentioned that open source projects have limited
resources. That I don't mind, either. But, if you can't/won't/don't
get all of the bugs squashed with the resources you have, then you need
to step back and reassess the situation. You need to do 1 of 2 things:
1. Acquire more resources
2. Acknowledge the project has outgrown the existing resources, and
to top adding features you do not have the resources to maintain.
As I said earlier, it's better to do a few things well, than a lot of
things poorly. I seriously doubt there are thousands of people with the
same issues (bugs) I have. But there must be a lot of people like me
for whom a feature they need doesn't work. Individually, there won't be
many users per bug. But in the aggregate, you could have thousands and
thousands of unhappy users. Do you feel those folks are going to give
LO a good push with out adding the proverbial "but"?
What I didn't like was being told my issues were not important. BS!
It's important to me.
This is the interesting piece to me. Can you expand on your experience
there ? clearly all bugs are important to someone - but not all are
'Critical' or whatever from a prioritization perspective. Nevertheless,
perhaps the naming of those prioritization is needlessly offensive.
Potentially with our new bugzilla we could use P1 -> P6 or whatever -
making it clear that this is a spectrum.
This is were the word "critical" is the issue, and how it's defined.
Sometimes, you can give the word a fixed, quantitative "value", if you
will in some cases, in others, it's subjective. An issue may be minor
and not critical from your perspective, but it could be major and very
critical to your user.
What told me I was being ignored, and essentially my issues were not
critical, is the fact they were never assigned to anyone for fixing, and
labeled as such.
Let's say you have a car, and every 4th time you go to use it, it won't
start. You take it to your mechanic, and each time you do, he tells you
"it's not important, he's got bigger problems to solve". Are you going
to continue to take it to that mechanic, or are you going to find a
I'm really not sure that there are any mechanics out there that do work
for free; I've not met one. Of course - if you want to pay for a bug to
be fixed, our level-3 bug queue has only a handful of open-bugs, and
they turn over on a weekly basis. But I strongly suspect you don't want
Don't want to pay? I bought a commercial writing program to help
replace LO. Isn't that paying? <G>
So - perhaps a more apt analogy is taking your car to a local friendly
volunteer / free mechanic down the road who helps people out of the
goodness of their heart - and berating them for not spending a week
investigating and fixing the squeak in your suspension -now- because
he's been working trying to get other people's car's to start at all ;-)
With the car analogy, it depends on how "critical" having the car
working is to you. If you need to have it start every time, barring
being out of gas and such (LOL), you pay to get it fixed. If the use is
sporadic, and dependability of that car isn't needed, you might choose
to have your neighbor tinker with it. Even then, there's an end to that
path, you get your car back, and do something different. Sell it, give
it away, let it rust away in your driveway.
Either way, the car eventually gets used less and less.
Anyhow - there is no desire to offend people through the prioritization
flow; that is a really critically useful function of QA though - so
ideas on how we can improve that appreciated.
I downloaded another open source writing program, and the developers are
clear they do what they want, if you want an issue fixed, you fix it
yourself, one way or another. That's fine, if there's issues I need and
they don't work, that's fine. They aren't telling me to use their
program instead of XXXXXX. They say here it is, if it works fine, if it
doesn't, please use something else.
The minute LO or any open source program says "Use us instead of XXXXXXX
or YYYYYYYY", you just crossed a line where users will expect things to
work. After all, you just told them you can use LO instead of XXXXXX or
YYYYYYY. But in XXXXXXXX or YYYYYYY, the feature(s) the user is looking
for works and in LO it is broken, and the user does not have the ability
to fix it, what do you think the user is going to do?
Mac OS X 10.8.5
To unsubscribe e-mail to: email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Engaging users: initial results of the survey · John Meyer
- [libreoffice-users] Re: Engaging users: initial results of the survey (continued)
- [libreoffice-users] Re: Engaging users: initial results of the survey · Ken Springer
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy