<html><head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head><body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote style="border: 0px none;"
cite="mid:56BF267F.90906@mozilla.com" type="cite">
<div style="margin:30px 25px 10px 25px;" class="__pbConvHr"><div
style="width:100%;border-top:1px solid #EDEEF0;padding-top:5px"> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:49%;">
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:dteller@mozilla.com"
style="color:#737F92
!important;padding-right:6px;font-weight:bold;text-decoration:none
!important;">David Rajchenbach-Teller</a></div> <div
style="display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;vertical-align:middle;width:48%;text-align:
right;"> <font color="#9FA2A5"><span style="padding-left:6px">2016
February 13 at 04:50</span></font></div> </div></div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote style="border: 0px none;"
cite="mid:56BF267F.90906@mozilla.com" type="cite">
<div style="color: rgb(136, 136, 136); margin-left: 24px;
margin-right: 24px;" __pbrmquotes="true" class="__pbConvBody">
<div>One possible solution would be to:<br>- add a component Firefox
> Performance (and also Thunderbird ><br>Performance, etc.) to
Bugzilla, which would cover all untriaged<br>performance issues
(including web content, ux, e10s, ...);<br>- have people triaging these
issues to likely features involved.<br></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I'd explore a solution along the lines of webcompat.com, which
drastically reduces the barrier to entry for both BMO novices and
experts. Besides dreamy UX, it offers anonymous reporting, so you don't
need to authenticate. And it elides the distinction between a browser
and a website issue, so users don't have to figure out the locus of the
issue before reporting it. (Of course many users don't do this anyway;
but the requirement that they do so is a barrier to entry in itself.)<br>
<br>
With webcompat.com, the process is just as important as the technology:
having folks to triage incoming reports, file bugs in product-specific
trackers like BMO, and update those reports (which are stored as issues
in GitHub) with changes to the underlying bugs is critical. Which is
similar to your proposal.<br>
<br>
Unlike your proposal, webcompat.com's scope is broader than Firefox,
since it welcomes issues in sites themselves, and it also addresses
issues in other browsers. But a narrower focus on Firefox perf would
still benefit from the streamlined process that it exposes to reporters.<br>
<br>
And it's worth considering broadening the scope anyway, since some perf
problems will be website issues that nevertheless affect Firefox users'
experience. If I had had a simple way to do so, I might have reported a
slow interaction on mint.com in Firefox (but not Chrome) that I used to
experience and suspected was an issue with the website itself.<br>
<br>
For an example of an issue that went through the webcompat.com process
(and turned out to be a dupe), see
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/2245"><https://github.com/webcompat/web-bugs/issues/2245></a>, which I filed
a few days ago and miketaylr triaged/duped.<br>
<br>
-myk<br>
<br>
</body></html>