Pardon to those who're on -core, since I fired it off to core when the
thread is in -dev :)

On Tue, 2004-07-27 at 12:04, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 12:54:49 -0400 Dylan Carlson <absinthe@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | 1.  Without bug voting, there's no way to determine what bugs are
most
> | important to the public (or at least to the people using Bugzilla,
> | which is really *our* public, in a working sense).
I'm not sure if users will use it sanely/sparingly, but this does seem
like a decent way to A) gain feedback on actual user priority, B) get
people to stop fooling w/ priorities, and posting semi-demanding
commentary asking asking why it is their their xyz feature they want
hasn't been implemented.

I like the notion of being able to gauge what is important to our users-
this option would likely be worthless for actual bugs, but enhancement
requests it would rock for.

> Well, given that most of our users don't seem to be able to get the
> priority field straight ("Waah! There's a tiny typo in an einfo
> statement! BLOCKER!"), I'd be kind of sceptical about an easily rigged
> popularity contest. I suspect we'd just end up seeing thousands of
votes
> for "add more pictures to bootsplash" and "add this horribly broken
> kernel patch to g-d-s"...
It's a feedback system, just that.  What you're pointing out above w/
the priority is tied to a single user incorrectly estimating the level
of borkage, which is kind of odd anyways- the dev looking into the
problem probably is well aware of the severity of the bug.

Personally I've always wondered why general users could fiddle w/
priority settings.

Either way, back to the bug voting issues, keep in mind if we turn this
on, and it ends up being abused/not incredibly useful, we *can* just
turn the dumb thing off.  Aside from time involved in setup (and
potentially disabling), there isn't a heck of a lot lost by trying.
Right?
~brian