Proposal 1: +1 Proposal 2: +1 Additional Comments: This is an example vote On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 3:15 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan <bat...@google.com> wrote:
> A few months ago, Reuven sent out an email > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/6c213d28c8e8c1a23614fb4d1837744bd044b6a68f3c47975333e71b@%3Cdev.beam.apache.org%3E> > about improvements to Beam's code review process. Because the email covered > multiple issues, we did not really dig deep into each of them. One of the > suggestions was to agree on a code review response turnaround time (SLO > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_level_objective>). Here is the > direct quote: > > It would be great if we could agree on a response-time SLA for Beam code > reviews. The response might be “I am unable to do the review until next > week,” however even that is better than getting no response. > > > All the comments on the original thread supported having an agreed upon > SLO. Therefore, I would like to discuss possible response-time SLO and > finalize it within this thread. For the purpose of this discussion, let's > put aside related topics such as the need of tooling support like PR > dashboard or reviewer availability for future discussions. > > *My proposals* > > *Proposal 1* > I propose having a *Default* review response time as *3 business days*. > This aligns with the frequency we consider most developers are checking the > dev list. My reasoning is, if one is checking the dev list, they could also > check their PR review queue. > > *Proposal 2* > I propose having an *Opt-in* review response time as *24 hours*. > Contributors are happy when reviewers respond swiftly to their PRs. > Specially, when we are making multiple small changes to Beam, waiting for > even a few days is frustrating. I understand that not all the reviewers can > review PRs daily. However, if some of us can incorporate half an hour of > beam review to our schedule, it could improve contributors' experience > drastically. Therefore, I suggest us having opt-in response time of 24 > hours. We can discuss how we can communicate this SLO to contributors and > reviewers in a separate thread. > > Please vote on these 2 proposals and propose any other solutions using > within this template: > > Template: > Proposal 1: <+-1> <?explanation> > Proposal 2: <+-1> <?explanation> > Additional Comments: <?explanation> > > Example answer: > Proposal 1: +1 Great idea > Proposal 2: +1 > Additional Comments: I have this idea foobar .... > > Thank you, > Huygaa > >
