[adding python-dev back on to the email] On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 15:51, Tennessee Leeuwenburg <tleeuwenburg@gmail.com

wrote:

...

...

Pretty much. I've got two views. One is that I'd like to search for issues that are up for grabs which I could take over, hack on, and generally not get underfoot of core development activity.

OK, let's do what is necessary to flag issues like this so that people can do this. That's why I like the "Under Development" status. Could rename "open" to "available" or "unsolved" to more clearly mark those issues as up for grabs.

Yep. I like that too.

...

Typically we use nosy lists to get specific people's attention. That or the priority gets bumped if it turns out to be an important issue. Lastly, people can email python-dev directly asking for input if all other attempts to get attention have failed.

Now that I am understanding the tracker system better, I think it's fine to just add reviews to the tracker issue and that will be enough to grab attention. There is always the option of emailing the list.

...

In other words you want some way to flag an issue that just needs to be talked about but is not ready to be coded. So status would go "open/new" -> "chatting/needs help" -> "under dev" -> "closed" with "pending" fitting in when necessary. Sound about right?

My worry with this is making sure the field gets updated.

Sounds exactly right. I'm not so concerned about this field being updated. If it doesn't, but someone is clearly working on it, then it's not really holding anyone back. Tracker janitors (although I do prefer gardeners!) can worry about whether the field is set correctly, and developers can just get on with doing their work.

I like: "Open/New" "Needs help / Chatting" "Under development" "Pending feedback" "Closed"

very much.

As long as "Under Dev" and "Pending" are time-based to switch to "chatting" or "closed" respectively, I am fine with this. What do other people think? Too heavy-handed? Just right to help people get people involved? -Brett

<snip> ...I can understand that, but I would worry that if we flag

...

something as under development it will simply be ignored by other people when they could actually help out (write the docs for someone, etc.). Or even worse that someone gets to a certain point with the development, walks away short of finishing the work (say doesn't get the docs finished) and everyone continues to ignore the issue because it is still flagged as under development.

...

If we can come up with a simple solution to this problem (perhaps have issues set to under development with no activity shift down a status level after a month) then maybe we will have something everyone can be happy with.

Maybe we can just revert anything that is under development back to "needs help" after a month of inactivity?

Cheers, -T