Improving the Spins process
 

As you're probably aware, the Fedora Board has tackled the topic of
the spins process a couple of times over the past year. While I'm
confident we're moving in the right direction, the process still
hasn't been defined as well as I would like. In an effort to help
clarify some of the issues at hand, Christoph Wickert (our current
Spins Wrangler) kicked off a great discussion at FUDCon Milan, and a
couple of us from the Board were involved in that discussion. I'd
like to continue that discussion as a Board and here on the advisory
board list as well. Christoph's slides (and proposal) are at
http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/presentations/New_Spins_Process.odp.

The Board will be discussing Christoph's slides in our public IRC
meeting today, but I'm also interested in getting feedback from those
who may not be able to attend the IRC meeting.

Some of the goals of Christoph's proposal include

* Move from using wiki categories to trac tickets for managing the
state of proposed spins. (Several spins have fallen through the
cracks because of the way categories work in the wiki.)
* Establish a more concrete schedule for the spins milestones
* Establish clear guidelines for the role and responsibility of the
Spins Wrangler

I encourage you to look over the slides at the link above, and let us
know your thoughts on the issue.

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:01:38 -0400,
"Jared K. Smith" <jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> * Move from using wiki categories to trac tickets for managing the
> state of proposed spins. (Several spins have fallen through the
> cracks because of the way categories work in the wiki.)
> * Establish a more concrete schedule for the spins milestones
> * Establish clear guidelines for the role and responsibility of the
> Spins Wrangler
>
> I encourage you to look over the slides at the link above, and let us
> know your thoughts on the issue.

While this doesn't fix all of the issues with Spins, I think Christoph's
proposal seems good at improving the parts of the process it addresses.

One thing I think tied to this that also needs improvement is communicating
which spins should have isos built and which of these should be torrent
only. Currently a wiki page is used for that and I think it would make
sense to involve the ticketting system in that part of the process as
well. (If nothing else make sure there is a ticket to set that wiki
page up.)
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:29:19AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:01:38 -0400,
> "Jared K. Smith" <jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > * Move from using wiki categories to trac tickets for managing the
> > state of proposed spins. (Several spins have fallen through the
> > cracks because of the way categories work in the wiki.)
> > * Establish a more concrete schedule for the spins milestones
> > * Establish clear guidelines for the role and responsibility of the
> > Spins Wrangler
> >
> > I encourage you to look over the slides at the link above, and let us
> > know your thoughts on the issue.
>
> While this doesn't fix all of the issues with Spins, I think Christoph's
> proposal seems good at improving the parts of the process it addresses.
>
having completed reading th slides now, +1

-Toshio
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

reviewed :) +1

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Jared K. Smith
<jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> As you're probably aware, the Fedora Board has tackled the topic of
> the spins process a couple of times over the past year. *While I'm
> confident we're moving in the right direction, the process still
> hasn't been defined as well as I would like. *In an effort to help
> clarify some of the issues at hand, Christoph Wickert (our current
> Spins Wrangler) kicked off a great discussion at FUDCon Milan, and a
> couple of us from the Board were involved in that discussion. *I'd
> like to continue that discussion as a Board and here on the advisory
> board list as well. *Christoph's slides (and proposal) are at
> http://cwickert.fedorapeople.org/presentations/New_Spins_Process.odp.
>
> The Board will be discussing Christoph's slides in our public IRC
> meeting today, but I'm also interested in getting feedback from those
> who may not be able to attend the IRC meeting.
>
> Some of the goals of Christoph's proposal include
>
> * Move from using wiki categories to trac tickets for managing the
> state of proposed spins. *(Several spins have fallen through the
> cracks because of the way categories work in the wiki.)
> * Establish a more concrete schedule for the spins milestones
> * Establish clear guidelines for the role and responsibility of the
> Spins Wrangler
>
> I encourage you to look over the slides at the link above, and let us
> know your thoughts on the issue.
>
> --
> Jared Smith
> Fedora Project Leader
> _______________________________________________
> advisory-board mailing list
> advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
>



--
Ing.Guillermo Gomez S.
Fedora Board Member A4
http://gomix.fedora-ve.org
http://www.neotechgw.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

2011/10/13 Guillermo Gómez <guillermo.gomez@gmail.com>

> reviewed :) *+1

Me too. However, as we discussed in the IRC meeting, we've
intentionally given great flexibility to the Spins Wranger in how they
decided to work and what that workflow should be. Since these slides
aren't a major departure from what we have now and not insane, I say
Go Forth And Just Do It(TM) :)

It sounds like communication would be improved by this to me.
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Jon Stanley <jonstanley@gmail.com> wrote:
> Me too. However, as we discussed in the IRC meeting, we've
> intentionally given great flexibility to the Spins Wranger in how they
> decided to work and what that workflow should be. Since these slides
> aren't a major departure from what we have now and not insane, I say
> Go Forth And Just Do It(TM) :)

There are two other related topics, that while not directly related to
Christoph's slides, are things that came up in discussions in Milan
and are worth discussing in a bigger venue:

1) We discussed whether the desktop media should go through the same
process, essentially treating it just like we treat the rest of the
spins. This would give us a more organized way to review the
kickstart file, make sure the design team is happy with the artwork,
etc. just like we would for spins. I think this is probably a good
idea, but would love more feedback from the desktop folks and the
design team before making a final decision on this. The intention is
not to add a layer of bureaucracy, but to simply help add some
structure to what is currently fairly unstructured.

2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
progress of features. As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. Is there
interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?

I welcome your thoughts and comments on either of these two ideas.

--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:28:01 -0400
"Jared K. Smith" <jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

...snip...

> 2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
> to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
> and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
> progress of features. As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
> Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
> that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
> state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. Is there
> interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
> keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
> the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
> scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?

I don't have any great objection to doing this, but...

* current trac on fedorahosted is pretty old and limited.
Not sure it's workflow would work for something complex like this.
(yes, we are trying hard still to get it upgraded. Hopefully soon).

* We would need to adjust it perhaps so it didn't send a flood of
emails to all fesco members (by default they are cc'ed on tickets)
when a ticket just changed state in a way that didn't require any
fesco interaction.

* Might be good to look at this as part of a features process
revamp. ;)

kevin
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 11:28:01 -0400
"Jared K. Smith" <jsmith@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

...snip...

> 2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
> to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
> and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
> progress of features. As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
> Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
> that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
> state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. Is there
> interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
> keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
> the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
> scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?

I don't have any great objection to doing this, but...

* current trac on fedorahosted is pretty old and limited.
Not sure it's workflow would work for something complex like this.
(yes, we are trying hard still to get it upgraded. Hopefully soon).

* We would need to adjust it perhaps so it didn't send a flood of
emails to all fesco members (by default they are cc'ed on tickets)
when a ticket just changed state in a way that didn't require any
fesco interaction.

* Might be good to look at this as part of a features process
revamp. ;)

kevin
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> 2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
> to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
> and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
> progress of features. As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
> Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
> that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
> state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. Is there
> interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
> keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
> the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
> scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?

Are you talking about a Trac instance that would be purely for feature
tracking?

--
Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board

Improving the Spins process
 

Am Freitag, den 14.10.2011, 08:02 -0400 schrieb Paul W. Frields:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:28:01AM -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> > 2) While discussing some of the shortcomings of using wiki categories
> > to track progress on Spins, we also talked about the Features process
> > and how it too might benefit from using a ticketing system to track
> > progress of features. As I understand it, Robyn (as the Fedora
> > Program Manager) already opens a FESCo ticket for each feature (so
> > that it's on the FESCo agenda), but uses wiki categories to track the
> > state (proposed, accepted, rejected, etc.) of each feature. Is there
> > interest in moving the features process over to using tickets for
> > keeping track of the feature state, and keeping the discussion about
> > the feature in one easy-to-find location, rather than having it
> > scattered across talk pages, wiki pages, and FESCo meeting minutes?
>
> Are you talking about a Trac instance that would be purely for feature
> tracking?

No, we'd use FESCo's trac. We already have a ticket for every feature
there anyway, but they just contain a link to the wiki page and are used
only for FESCo meeting agenda.

Regards,
Christoph


_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board