[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Discussion: Public Comment and Errata Urgency/Priority/ActionLevels
Dennis, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Hi Peter, > > [...] There are other deficiencies, but I don't suppose to go into battle over that. Thanks :-) > > I do recommend that we come up with an understanding of these level that correspond in clear-cut ways to creation of specifications and documentation of other kinds. Likewise, we need to understand how to calibrate the importance of responding to defect reports on that scale. > Sounds reasonable. [...] > > Here's a crude mapping (very crude, I am just playing here): > Urgency JIRA Priority Severity > > 0: no action (an actual resolution in JIRA) > trivial 5: matter of style > (cosmetic) 4: de minimis > 1. elective > minor (can workaround) > 2. desirable 3. mandated > 3. important 2. insufficient > 4. urgent major 1. serious > (loss of function) > 5. critical critical 0. critical > (fails) > blocker > (cannot proceed) > > You can slide the Urgency and Severity notions around the JIRA Priorities in different ways. I'm not going to fuss over that. I think making something sensible about the JIRA Priorities that work for us in terms of urgency and level of response is good enough. I totally agree here. It's probably more effective to adopt ourselves to the JIRA 'priorities', which seem match our requirements for the most part, rather than starting a long discussion on the perfect mapping. Best regards, Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Junge [mailto:peterjunge@RedOffice.com] > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00086.html > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 19:28 > To: dennis.hamilton@acm.org > Cc: robert_weir@us.ibm.com; office@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [office] Discussion: Public Comment and Errata Urgency/Priority/Action Levels > > Dennis, all, > > I would go for action levels, that represent the priorities > predetermined by the JIRA bug tracker, in order to ensure consistent > work flow. > Starting at 'Create Isuue' [1], I have been proceeding to step 2, where > I find 'Blocker/Critical/Major/Minor/Trivial' on the 'Priority' > drop-down. Both your proposal and the severity levels defined at the ODF > wiki [2] fail in mapping to the 'Create Issue' form, because they break > severity down into six levels, rather than five predefined in the bug > tracker. This seems to be configurable with JIRA [3], however I would > guess, that tweaks have a global effect on the JIRA installation at > OASIS. Did someone dive deeper into this yet? > > Best regards, > Peter > > [1] http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa > [2] http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Severity_Levels > [3] http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira/docs/v3.13.1/priorities.html > > Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office/200904/msg00085.html > [ ... ] >> Here are suggested action levels. Note that these can be assigned >> differently with respect to the same issue but different versions of >> specifications and in-progress development of committee drafts. These are >> assigned as the judgment of the TC on how to proceed with an issue. This >> seems to provide the discretion we require and that we can apply on a >> case-by-case basis. >> >> 0. No Action. Although the situation occurs, it is concluded that no action >> is to be taken. >> >> 1. Elective. The issue may be considered in work in progress; it is not >> considered material and not worthy of errata or corrigendum to existing >> work. >> >> 2. Desirable. The issue will be addressed in work in progress. It may be >> reflected in a future errata or corrigendum, if such are being produced >> anyway. >> >> 3. Important. The issue shall be addressed in work in progress. It shall >> be reflected in an erratum or corrigendum at the next opportunity. >> >> 4. Urgent. The issue shall be addressed at the earliest possible time. It >> will be addressed in work in progress. It is important enough to trigger >> production of an erratum or corrigendum or advance notice of a defect to be >> remedied. >> >> 5. Critical. There is an emergency involving risk to implementation and use >> of a specified feature that must be addressed immediately. Extraordinary >> out-of-cycle measures will be taken to issue advisories and other >> announcements of the issue and recommended work-around until it can be >> handled as part of an urgent response. >> >> > [ ... ] > > -- Peter Junge Open Source Strategy Director Beijing Redflag Chinese 2000 Software Co., Ltd. Building No.2, Block A, Huilongsen, 18 Xihuan Nanlu Beijing Economic-Technological Development Area 100176 Beijing - P.R.China 北京红旗中文贰仟软件技术有限公司 地址:北京经济技术开发区(亦庄)西环南路18号汇龙森A座二层 邮编:100176 电话/Tel: +86-10-51570010 ext.6183 邮箱/e-mail: peterjunge@RedOffice.com http://www.RedOffice.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]