Bug tracker: next steps

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

skip at pobox.com writes:

 > It also provides a place for new people to dive in and help.  I'm
 > sure Stephen is familiar with the "for faster service review five"
 > policy some of the Python folks abide by.

Of course.  That's a very concrete idea, a great idea in fact because
it can be implemented incrementally and ramped up.  If we can get even
one of those commitments[1] from reviewers, it'll be a big step forward.
But we don't have any at this point, and that kind of thing is what
I'm asking for in connection with an ITS if we're going to bill it as
an improvement in service for XEmacs users and related developers.

But I'm just feeling my way forward, because the XEmacs Reviewers have
historically been a rather process-averse group.  IMO, we were
impelled by the momentum of the enterprise-supported Lucid Emacs
(including the early years of XEmacs when Lucid was partnered by Sun),
and coasted on that until at the same time that a bunch of core people
got jobs at the same time that our most prolific contributor went back
to grad school.


Footnotes: 
[1]  As implemented by Martin van Loewis, basically you need to
summarize the content of five ITS threads (patch or bug), make a
recommendation for resolution, and explain why you make it.  He seems
to give 2-5 day turnaround on evaluating and acting on the reviews
(which comes first) and then evaluating (and usually acting on) the
poster's request.

[2]  

[2]