Papercuts remixed - the bug list

Unicorn.Consulting at
Sun Jul 22 08:42:51 UTC 2012

On 17/07/2012 12:04 AM, Wayne Mery (d531) wrote:
> My point is not about spreading the word specifically, but about the 
> fact that the current papercut process is wikicentric and 
> bugzillacentric. So I think the scope, definition and process of 
> papercuts could benifit from revision before wide publicity occurs.
> Part of my concern is we want to be able to deliver as much good as 
> possbile, because we have limited developer resources and want to 
> minimize the management effort. So
> a) I don't think we need a huge list of issues that is mostly a 
> regurgitation of the buzilla database, nor do we need a list of every 
> single issue that one person can think of.
> b) who is managing the 200-400 or more nominations?  Consider the 
> counts wanted-thuderbird3 flags -- 500 for "+" [1] (195 still open), 
> 164 for "?" [2], 92 for "-" [3].
> Also, it has been stated that there will be voting (which I am in 
> favor of).  How then does one for vote for nominations that straggle in. 
Perhaps like with most things. There are the quick and the dead.  If the 
nominations are later, and of general importance there is a reasonable 
chance someone else will put the same thing up.

Seriously however, I think that we should consider using test pilot for 
the feed back/voting part.  While we are all talking with the best of 
intentions, might it not be quite illuminating if we actually ask the 
user base in terms of  "if you could have 5 changes to Thunderbird in 
the next year, which of the following would you choose?" and include a 
"don't change anything" option

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4951 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <>

More information about the tb-planning mailing list