Certainly areas of potential improvement is in regard to defining appropriate tags for Milestones and Components, and coming up with a list of keywords that we can agree to the meaning of.
Would it make sense to have a Sugar milestone (e.g., Sugar 0.82) that is distinct from the OLPC milestones? Or would it make more sense to have a Sugar version that maps to an OLPC milestone?
Would it make sense to consistently add keywords that map to the Sugar modules or should these be components?
- et alia
The assignment of priorities is the difficult one. We need to come up with definitions and a process. A first pass:
- Blocker: catastrophic failure—Sugar will not run or user experience severely impaired (new features would rarely, if ever, fall into this category)
- High: important to Sugar user experience—either in terms of performance or usability (these would typically be coupled with the "task" ticket type)
- Med: enhancements to non-core features (or enhancements that impact individual activities)
- Low: odds and ends
Would it be possible to assign teams to each ticket, where we identify up front someone who agrees to verify a ticket, and someone who agrees to test a fix? Maybe we can accumulate a list of volunteers who'd be willing to be assigned in a work-wheel-like system?
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/bugsquad/ presents an interesting model.