Sample issues where triagers were assigned bugs:

https://crbug.com/585088
https://crbug.com/581588

Just thought I'd comment that sheriffbot has changed my behavior:  I'm no longer using the Needs-Feedback label when I ask for information on bugs that are likely not network stack bugs, to avoid sheriffbot.

We have changed the behavior of Needs-Feedback assigning, 

Now the behavior When feedback provided is
if owner not present: then add the "Needs-Feedback" requester as owner. No status changed. 

if already has a owner (provided the owner is not the reporter) then ignore setting the owner. Status not changed.

Along with that remove "Needs-Feedback" label and add "Needs-Review" for tracking.

More details are found in  issue 596470 

Yea...That's still going to cause me, at least, to avoid ever adding the label to non-network bugs.  I'll occasionally attempt to triage them, but not something I feel I should ever own, or there's a 90% chance they'll end up owned but in a blackhole, which seems worse than unowned.

And it's still a problem for the network stack triager.  Once their rotation is done, unowned network issues with feedback should not go back to them.  it's up to the next triager to follow up.

We probably shouldn't have a rule that discourages a rotation-based triage approach.  Maybe we just punt on setting an owner entirely?

I've actually heard some positive feedback on this rule for the security sheriff rotation, but ensuring that the requester is cced rather than set as owner would work fine for our use case.

It does seem likely that this could cause bugs to be blackholed with the wrong owner, which we should be sure to avoid.

I'd be happy with the requester being CCed.

There is an important benefit to setting the owner, over say appending the cc list... people get additionally notified on their weekly bug reports e-mail.

The objective here with this rule chain is really about making sure that we are seeing and responding to feedback.  The more visibility that we can push (through multiple channels) the better.  We don't want good feedback to go to waste.

For this reason, I'm comfortable w/ the current state of the feature, setting the owner, but not changing the status.  I think that it provides the right balance, w/ out being overly burdensome.

Marking as "WontFix" per comment #11. Please feel free to reopen if needed. Thank you.

Universally is happening now, the bug gets assigned to the triager.  The triager unassigns himself from the bug, as he's no longer on triage.  That just seems like a waste of time.

There was a subsequent discussion/ change, where we stopped setting the owner and moved strictly to a cc only.

Assinging to Austin to comment.

What we do is:

1. We don't change the status of bug.
2. If owner is present we don't change that as well.
3. If no owner is present, then we add feedback requester as owner but we don't change the status of the bug.

The change we made now is to wait for 7 days before checking whether feedback is received.

Previously we assign the bug to feedback requester now we add the owner if no owner is present and we don't change the bug status.

Please let me know if we need to make the change to move owner to cc, instead of adding them.

Hrm...If no one's responding on seven days, then our triage process is missing looking at the followups.  Going to go ahead and WontFix this, then.

Please note that the CL landed to "wait for 7 days before checking feedback" went on 7/28/16. Thanks