A Glorious Vision of Our Shared Update Feedback Future (bodhi, karma, and proventesters, oh my)
henrik at henriknordstrom.net
Wed Nov 23 01:56:23 UTC 2011
tis 2011-11-22 klockan 17:28 -0800 skrev Adam Williamson:
> We could tweak the rules here for sure, that's kind of the attraction. I
> was focusing on the critpath case as an obvious one that benefits, but
> indeed, we could look at interpreting certain negative results more
> aggressively for non-critpath too.
And I come to this as maintaner outside critpath and occational tester
of various things.
My view of the brokenness of the current karma system is very much in
line with what you describe, and I think the proposed model is a win for
everyone involved as it gives better guidance to both maintainers and
testers and actual value in the given feedback. The karma system is too
much all or nothing and too focused on positive feedback.
By nature negative feedback is a lot easier to attract than positive.
But it's also the negative feedback that really matters. Any negative
feedback given should not be taken lightly no matter from who it comes.
But for the same reasons it need to be very clear on why there is
negative feedback and reasonable guidance (by UI choice) on what it
means to give negative feedback.
Note that It has happened to me both that I have not realized there have
been negative feedback given on my updates and that others have not
noticed negative feedback I have given on their updates.
More information about the devel