Open Processes Task Force

Development archive
1

Hi everyone,

I propose to launch a task force focusing on open processes at work in the RIOT community. The goals are both (i) maintenance/improvements of these processes to adapt to the evolution of our community, and (ii) ensure an appropriate level of transparency concerning what the current processes are.

If interested, please PING this thread for starters, and don’t hesitate to bring in comments or more content/suggestions.

To be more concrete, I propose the task force would work for starters on items such as the below.

  • document/discuss the lessons learnt so far for current processes, for instance:

  • what are the lessons learnt for our “task force” concept in practice?

  • should we not define more precisely what a “task force” is?

  • what other definitions are needed (e.g. an even smaller unit a.k.a. “design team” a la “scrum team”)?

  • discuss the need for, and merits of (new) development processes, for instance:

  • introducing a “show-stopper” textual label for comments on PRs (if absent, would require less or no ACK before being merged, after some agreed-upon probation time). The idea would be to increase agility

  • introducing a “high-impact” label on PRs (would require more ACKs before being merged).

  • discuss the need for, and merits of (new) strategic coordination, for instance:

  • do we need more technical leadership? Goal: optimize the order of PR merging

  • if so, what shape should this leadership take? Requirement: scalability with community size and sustainability w.r.t. to time, which means avoiding bottlenecks somehow…

Cheers

Emmanuel

2

Hey,

3

Hi, Just to be clear, we are talking about administrative processes on our work in RIOT here, right? Not some kind of system processes. Because that’s what I was thinking first Manu’s mail was about and I had a really hard time wrapping my head around it.

Cheers, Martine

4

Hi Martine,

5

Hi Kaspar,

6

Hi!

         - introducing a "show-stopper" textual label for comments on PRs (if absent, would require less or no ACK before being merged, after some agreed-upon probation time). The idea would be to increase agility          - introducing a "high-impact" label on PRs (would require more ACKs before being merged).

That's pretty much the idea of the labels "minor" and "major" (impact).

Cheers, Oleg

7

Hi!

> - introducing a "show-stopper" textual label for comments on PRs > (if absent, would require less or no ACK before being merged, after some > agreed-upon probation time). The idea would be to increase agility > - introducing a "high-impact" label on PRs (would require more > ACKs before being merged).

That's pretty much the idea of the labels "minor" and "major" (impact).

@Kaspar care to comment? If I remember correctly you saw some use in introducing something like the "high-impact" label?

Cheers

Emmanuel

8

Hi again everyone,

just one general comment: this thread currently has a lower priority compared to the efforts towards next month’s new RIOT release. So basically, for those involved: take your time to provide input other than +1 for the idea of having such a task force :wink: I plan to provide soonish some input on the tentative definition of what a task force is (and what it is not).

Best,

Emmanuel

9

Hey,