On 03/12/2018 08:20, Richard Brown wrote:

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018 at 23:34, Jan Ritzerfeld <suse@mailinglists.jan.ritzerfeld.org> wrote:

...

Hey,

recently, several bug reports were filled for an internal FATE feature request and assigned to the respective maintainer or bug owner of the affected packages. So, since when Bugzilla is used for feature requests - especially for internal ones that weren't discussed in the openSUSE community? I'm an external package maintainer and I'm utterly confused that someone internal tells me to implement internal features requests without asking me first whether I'm willing to do so!

Gruß Jan

I'm confused by your use of 'internal' and 'external' in this case, so I'll use different language.

SUSE use their own SUSE FATE tool for tracking features they wish to implement in their commercial products.

openSUSE used to use openFATE for tracking features in our community projects, but this proved to be ineffective as contributors cannot be expected to work, think, or implement features in the same way that SUSE are doing so for their products.

https://features.opensuse.org has carried the following notice for some time now:

"Dear visitor, please be advised that this page is outdated and dysfunctional in parts and will be discontinued. If you are interested in how to propose features for the openSUSE Project, then please join the according discussions on our mailinglists. For proposing new features in the openSUSE distributions, you can use the opensuse-factory mailinglist. For project-related topics, the opensuse-project mailinglist is a good place to start with. "

I expect we'll be shutting features.opensuse.org down relatively soon - heck, within SUSE I am aware they are planning on moving from FATE to a new tool soon, so lots of change is occurring in this area.

Regardless of this change, basic principles apply - no SUSE Engineer should be expecting any external contributor to do their work for them. It's their job to ensure the SUSE-needed features are implemented, not that of the community. And obviously for packages that are maintained by both SUSE employees and non-SUSE employees, I expect the SUSE employees to talk to their fellow contributors so they know what they're doing and why.

Therefore I request that you contact me off list with a detailed overview of the situation that triggered this email so I can follow it up within SUSE.

Regards,

Richard Brown openSUSE Chairman

Further to this all packages that SUSE is "interested in" should have a SUSE employee set as one of the bugowners there in many cases may also be community bugowners, however we know of a number of packages where this isn't the case, if you happen to know or find one let me know and I'll get it resolved. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org

Am Sonntag, 2. Dezember 2018, 22:50:39 CET schrieb Richard Brown:

[...] I'm confused by your use of 'internal' and 'external' in this case, so I'll use different language.

I see that "internal" and "external" was not very helpful wrt openSUSE bugzilla, now.

SUSE use their own SUSE FATE tool for tracking features they wish to implement in their commercial products.

That explains why the FATE request in the bug report was not displayed as a link.

openSUSE used to use openFATE for tracking features in our community projects, but this proved to be ineffective as contributors cannot be expected to work, think, or implement features in the same way that SUSE are doing so for their products. [...]

Yes, and I was confused by (wrongly) seeing a reference to a discontinued tracking tool where I couldn't easily search for request numbers and had to manually crafting the URL that lead to a "Feature #xxxxxx does either not exist or you are not authorized to access it."

Regardless of this change, basic principles apply - no SUSE Engineer should be expecting any external contributor to do their work for them. It's their job to ensure the SUSE-needed features are implemented, not that of the community.

Well, as an "agilist", I can be somewhat reluctant to assign tasks to individual people, or especially, to be assigned to one individually. ;)

And obviously for packages that are maintained by both SUSE employees and non-SUSE employees, I expect the SUSE employees to talk to their fellow contributors so they know what they're doing and why.

After reading your explanation, it looks for me this FATE request hit packages that are solely maintained by a community member most likely because of the assumption that the bug owner is always a SUSE employee. Thank you for helping me to understand this! Fortunately, Simon already offered his help to get back a SUSE employee as one of the bugowners.

Therefore I request that you contact me off list with a detailed overview of the situation that triggered this email so I can follow it up within SUSE.

Sure. And just to be clear, it's nothing "personal", the SUSE employee filling this bug always replied in a helpful, polite, and respectful way to me and all the others! However, I'm still not sure whether any feature request (SUSE or not) should be dealt best in bugzilla, I assumed that "resolve feature" is there on purpose. Gruß Jan -- Sooner or later, the worst possible set of circumstances is bound to occur. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@opensuse.org