[core-workflow] Tracker workflow proposal

[R. David Murray]

On Wed, 07 May 2014 08:09:03 -0700, Carol Willing <willingc at willingconsulting.com> wrote:
> I'm wondering if "decision needed" might be more accurately named 
> "triage needed"?
> 
> Looking at David's well documented proposals and other mail comments, 
> "triage needed" more specifically describes the 'state'.
> 
> A few thoughts:
> 
> 1. "Triage needed" would raise the importance and visibility of the 
> triage contributor role. A positive for onboarding and growing 
> development talent.
> 
> 2. "Triage needed" is more descriptive and clearer than "decision 
> needed" especially for those users that do not read documentation or 
> understand the development workflow. "Decision needed" implies that a 
> decision will be made to include or not include in a release. 
> Realistically, decisions are made throughout the remainder of the 
> development process based on time, resources, etc.

I'll be interested in what others think, but to me "decision needed" is
closer than "triage needed".  That is, the state means that someone other
than the person moving the issue to that state needs to make a decision.
That decision can be "Is this something we consider a bug?  What releases
can we fix this in given our backward compatibility requirements?
Is this an acceptable enhancement?  And any other decision that needs
to be made before the issue can move forward.

All of these *can* be "triage" decisions, but to my ear it is the word
"triage" that is more about deciding where to allocate resources ("which
release"), whereas we generally don't work that way.  We just decide if
it can go in or not, and if the patch is ready before the next release,
it can go in.

More specifically, because I removed 'committer decision needed',
'decision needed' covers the case of needing a committer decision,
which is by definition not a triage decision :)

Perhaps 'committer decision needed' should be kept after all?

--David