In the past, I have had some of my bug disputes rejected with Bug Dispute Manager giving clear and educative explanations why my dispute was rejected.

However, this was not the case with the latest bug dispute I submitted which got rejected (latest as at the time of this writing). The dispute reply? It was:

QUOTE

The dispute was rejected

I agree with the TL decision here (with both arguments).

UNQUOTE

QUESTION:

+ Can there be a structured way of directly addressing and replying to the questions or concerns of the tester raised in the dispute?

+ Can there be a 100% objective way of reviewing disputes (not subjective or one-liner "agreeing with TL" replies)

A bug dispute is an appeal by an AGRRIEVED tester seeking an UNBIASED bug re-appraisal by a NEUTRAL party. Receiving scanty and subjective replies gives the inkling of a bias.

As a tester, I sometimes spend hours on regression tests and getting bug dispute replies that lack the attributes of a neutral party, will gradually erode confidence in the dispute mechanism. I don't think test IO wants such impression on their bug dispute mechanism.

In my opinion, a bug dispute review by a neutral party should NEVER be subjective, TL-biased or a one-liner approach (an aggrieved tester is like a plaintiff seeking fair arbitration or justice)

It should rather ALWAYS have a way of explaining further the test IO guiding principle that justified the bug rejection.

This is because tester has no where to go for further appeal after dispute is rejected, so please give a fair, objective, unbiased and sufficiently detailed reply and ensure each concern of tester was addressed and directly replied-to.

FEATURE REQUEST:

+ Can a bug dispute form to include 3 fields be included into the dispute request mechanism? (e.g. "Category", "Pain-point", "Request")?

[For the request, first field can be a selectable drop-down. Character count can be limited for the other two fields]

Then Bug dispute managers should not be able to submit their reply until they responded within each request field. This way, dispute managers can focus on tester request and ensure that a COMPREHENSIVE reply is given in a STANDARDIZED format.

There wouldn't have been any need to make this feature request if things were as they were prior to the last dispute reply I received.

Were recent changes, additions (or removals) made to the bug dispute team? I'm wondering because this is the first time I received such a scanty, unhelpful (and unprofessional) reply in a rejected dispute.

I would greatly appreciate if my feature request could be implemented. This would go a long way to boost my confidence and trust in this mechanism