"Well, I’ve been watching the Launchpad.net bug tracker for several weeks now, and judging by the bug-filing metric, Launchpad.net is very successful. Great. But what that means in practice is that we can’t resolve the majority of incoming bug reports and feature requests. The Launchpad development team at Canonical simply does not have enough surface area to handle it all. If we doubled — indeed, if we quadrupled — the size of the team, it still wouldn’t be enough. With a site like this, whose user base is large, and growing rapidly, there are really only two options:
1. triage mercilessly, and leave most things undone
2. open it up and let the users help
Clearly, answer 2 is better."
So what about Soyuz? What about the component of launchpad they aren't opening up?
I find the rate of bug ticketing to be an interesting metric indeed.
|Open Bugs||Total Reported Bugs|
By Launchpad’s own bug reporting statistics, Soyuz has seen more bug reports than Rosetta or Blueprint or Answers..and has more bug reports open as well. By the reasoning stated above, the Lauchpad users are more interested in Soyuz than these other Launchpad components and thus by the same reasoning Soyuz is more in need of being opened up to contribution and should be opened first before these other components.
Its unfortunate that Launchpad was designed in such a way that Canonical’s own business processes are getting in the way of Soyuz being opened up. By all the given rationale for opening Lauchpad piecewise, Soyuz has earned to be one of the first pieces opened. Assuming of course Canonical actually believes its own stated rationale for opening up these components.