2008/3/30, Andrew Farris <lordmorgul(a)gmail.com>:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer <jwboyer <at> gmail.com> writes:
>> I have another proposal I'm in the middle of writing for how to deal
>> with negative karma votes. It's essentially "negative karma votes
>> require a bugzilla entry".
>
> That's a bad idea, the reason for a negative karma vote is not always a
bug,
> for example, packages can be -1ed for reasons like "this shouldn't go
out
> before package Y goes out, please either add Y to this update or hold it
until
> the Y update gets pushed".
Wouldn't those be logged in users though (or at least.. should be). Maybe
only
anon negative karma votes should need a bz entry with them?
It seems a little like requiring a higher threshhold for saying something
bad about Fedora than saying something good which certainly is not a
desirable signal to send.
Also remember an anon negative vote can be -1 (Also affected by about
mentioned problem), thus no need for a bz entry but it does give us valuable
information in that it is not a single user experiencing this problem - for
the kernel e.g. this might be affects multiple archs, multiple
configurations of hardware, information the anon user might be encouraged to
add to the bugzilla report.