Using assignees for RFC shepherd

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Using assignees for RFC shepherd

Rob Lanphier-4
Hi folks,

In the ArchCom meeting earlier today, Daniel, Timo, Tim and I discussed the
way we handle RFC assignments in Phabricator.  Previously, the RFC would
frequently be assigned to person writing the RFC.  As we try out the Rust
model (per T123606 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606>), and as we
try to increase the speed by which RFCs move though the process, we thought
it would make sense to also assign RFCs to shepherds on the ArchCom.

We didn't discuss all of the implications of this in the meeting today, but
we think this might help us scale our RFC triage process.  What do you all
think?

Rob
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using assignees for RFC shepherd

Scott MacLeod
Sounds good, Rob, and All,

Thanks for all of your good work on this!

Scott



On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, Rob Lanphier <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> In the ArchCom meeting earlier today, Daniel, Timo, Tim and I discussed the
> way we handle RFC assignments in Phabricator.  Previously, the RFC would
> frequently be assigned to person writing the RFC.  As we try out the Rust
> model (per T123606 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606>), and as we
> try to increase the speed by which RFCs move though the process, we thought
> it would make sense to also assign RFCs to shepherds on the ArchCom.
>
> We didn't discuss all of the implications of this in the meeting today, but
> we think this might help us scale our RFC triage process.  What do you all
> think?
>
> Rob
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l




--

- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- 415 480 4577
- http://scottmacleod.com
- Please donate to tax-exempt 501 (c) (3)
- World University and School
- via PayPal, or credit card, here -
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- or send checks to
- PO Box 442, (86 Ridgecrest Road), Canyon, CA 94516
- World University and School - like Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using assignees for RFC shepherd

MZMcBride-2
In reply to this post by Rob Lanphier-4
Rob Lanphier wrote:

>In the ArchCom meeting earlier today, Daniel, Timo, Tim and I discussed
>the way we handle RFC assignments in Phabricator.  Previously, the RFC
>would frequently be assigned to person writing the RFC.  As we try out
>the Rust model (per T123606 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606>),
>and as we try to increase the speed by which RFCs move though the
>process, we thought it would make sense to also assign RFCs to shepherds
>on the ArchCom.
>
>We didn't discuss all of the implications of this in the meeting today,
>but we think this might help us scale our RFC triage process.  What do
>you all think?

I guess <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance>
tries to answer the question "what's a shepherd?"

---
* Nominate a shepherd from a (sub)team to guide an RFC through the process.
** Makes sure that stakeholders are informed.
** Guides the discussion.
** Once the discussion plateaus or stalls & in coordination with the RFC
   author(s), announces and widely publicizes a "Final Comment Period",
   which is one week.
---

I'm still not really sure what any of this means. The biggest focus seems
to be on speed and throughput for the RFC process itself, when the focus
should actually be code quality, sustainability, and overall architecture.

I found the recent RFC discussion about adding an expiration field to the
watchlist table to be very disappointing. My impression was that people
were more concerned with quickly pushing through a new feature (with
unknown user interface implications) than with solving the deeper
underlying problems we have with page lists.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using assignees for RFC shepherd

Scott MacLeod
Rob, MZMcBride and All,

And what's a shepherd in relation to the facilitator of any specific
committee (if this is relevant)?

Can someone please circulate a summary of RUST decision-making again? (Is
this relevant -
https://oqi.wisc.edu/resourcelibrary/uploads/resources/Project_Prioritization_Guide_v_1.pdf
?)

Thank you,
Scott



On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:08 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Rob Lanphier wrote:
> >In the ArchCom meeting earlier today, Daniel, Timo, Tim and I discussed
> >the way we handle RFC assignments in Phabricator.  Previously, the RFC
> >would frequently be assigned to person writing the RFC.  As we try out
> >the Rust model (per T123606 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T123606>),
> >and as we try to increase the speed by which RFCs move though the
> >process, we thought it would make sense to also assign RFCs to shepherds
> >on the ArchCom.
> >
> >We didn't discuss all of the implications of this in the meeting today,
> >but we think this might help us scale our RFC triage process.  What do
> >you all think?
>
> I guess <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance>
> tries to answer the question "what's a shepherd?"
>
> ---
> * Nominate a shepherd from a (sub)team to guide an RFC through the process.
> ** Makes sure that stakeholders are informed.
> ** Guides the discussion.
> ** Once the discussion plateaus or stalls & in coordination with the RFC
>    author(s), announces and widely publicizes a "Final Comment Period",
>    which is one week.
> ---
>
> I'm still not really sure what any of this means. The biggest focus seems
> to be on speed and throughput for the RFC process itself, when the focus
> should actually be code quality, sustainability, and overall architecture.
>
> I found the recent RFC discussion about adding an expiration field to the
> watchlist table to be very disappointing. My impression was that people
> were more concerned with quickly pushing through a new feature (with
> unknown user interface implications) than with solving the deeper
> underlying problems we have with page lists.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>



--

- Scott MacLeod - Founder & President
- 415 480 4577
- http://scottmacleod.com
- Please donate to tax-exempt 501 (c) (3)
- World University and School
- via PayPal, or credit card, here -
- http://worlduniversityandschool.org
- or send checks to
- PO Box 442, (86 Ridgecrest Road), Canyon, CA 94516
- World University and School - like Wikipedia with best STEM-centric
OpenCourseWare - incorporated as a nonprofit university and school in
California, and is a U.S. 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt educational organization.
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Using assignees for RFC shepherd

Rob Lanphier-4
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 7:08 AM, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm still not really sure what [the "shepherd" definition in the
> Governance RFC
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Governance>] means.
> The biggest focus seems to be on speed and throughput for the RFC process
> itself, when the focus should actually be code quality, sustainability, and
> overall architecture.


Are code quality, sustainability, overall architecture, and
speed+throughput for the RFC process mutually exclusive?

I filed T125865: Assign RFCs to ArchCom shepherds
<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T125865> which I think will be the most
organized place to discuss this further.

Rob
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l