Based on T219450, I believe a faster response time could have been done if maybe the workflow improved somehow.
These are things that maybe happened (and could be done better?):
* The ticket filed T219450 was unclear:
** It was not UBN (should it?)
** The title was not 100% clear of what was going on
** It had no tags (which ones?)
* Product owners did not monitor recent phabricator reports after a deploy (should they?)
* The issue generates a small amount of errors (galery editing) -compared to many other so it went unnoticed after deployment
* //What else?//
The goal of this is to detect gaps improvements on the workflow, with the deliverable being a set of recommendations or amends to workflow of reporting/responding to phabricator (and or other channels that may be used to report errors, such as IRC or email), advice for users reporting issues and for those reacting to them.
In particular, we were told some people thought of making the ticket "UBN", but didn't because they were told only the developers should, so maybe some exceptions could be made on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Phabricator/Project_management#Setting_task_priorities
This is not an easy task, as it has to balance making enough noise to be noticed with not overstepping with bug fixing priorities.