To clarify a bit my (Douglas McClendon) participation in this discussion- I think what I was driving at, though perhaps not directly enough, was less about the desired formatting of bug reports, and more about one particular piece of the process that remains behind closed doors, and seemingly avoided in discussion. Namely, Karanbir kept implying that the progress(bar) of the brandstripping was inferrable from status in the bug system, because each package is a category in the bug system. Now the progressbar would be inferrable if by default a single bug was opened for every package, and the process of the audit was to systematically close those bugs. But from what I can gather, the actual process involves a colloboration of the core developers, that happens entirely off of the public development list, and will involve the vast majority of the audit happening entirely non-transparently. Now, I understand that this is a perfectly workable system, and can work with an additional call for volunteer help of posting bugs about brand-to-strip from packages. But what I was really hoping to see was a transparent audit, with a community of contributors helping to check 5000 or however many boxes off of a long list. Because with the latter method, a newcoming contributor can feel a sense of accomplishment ticking the progressbar from 2345/5000->2346. But with the current model, all an outsider can accomplish, is to file a bug, which in truth, only has the visible effect of making the progressbar go _backwards_.