> On 7 Dec 2018, at 17:52, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote:
> Hi,
> Late but.

No harm in them continuing to roll in, I’m just cognisant of needing to annoy 
everyone with a second poll, so no point perpetuating it past a likely 
unassailable consensus.

> 1. A
> 2. +1
> 3. +1
> 4. -1
> 5. -0
> 6. +1
> RE 4, I think blocker is an important priority. High and urgent mean the same 
> thing to me. Wish is fine, but that is too similar to low if you ask me. My 
> ideal would be low, medium, high, blocker. Medium feels weird, but it's a 
> real thing, it's not high priority and we really want it done, but it's not 
> low enough that we might skip it/not get to it anytime soon.

It seems like people have really strong (and divergent) opinions about 

So, to begin: I don’t think Medium is any different to Normal, in the proposal? 
 Except Normal is, well, more accurate I think?  It is the default priority, 
and should be used unless strong reasons otherwise.

As for Blocker vs Urgent, I obviously disagree (but not super strongly):  
Urgent conveys more information IMO.  Blocker only says we cannot release 
without this.  Urgent also says we must release with this, and ASAP.  The 
meaning of a priority is anyway distinct from its name, and the meaning of 
Urgent is described in the proposal to make this clear.  But, it’s easy to add 
a quick poll item for the top priority name.  Any other suggestions, besides 
Urgent and Blocker?

Of course, if we remove Priority from the Bug type, I agree with others that 
the top level priority ceases to mean anything, and there probably shouldn’t be 

Wish will already be included in the next poll.

> RE 5. I don't think I have ever used the environment field or used the 
> contents populated in it. Doesn't mean someone else hasn't, but in terms of 
> making the easy things easy it seems like making it required isn't so high 
> value? I don't populate it myself usually I put it in the description or the 
> subject without thinking.
> It seems like the purpose of a field is to make it indexable and possibly 
> structured. How often do we search or require structure on this field?

Are you conflating this with Q6?  The environment field was not discussed, only 
the potential Platform field, which we _hope_ to make a multi-select list.  
This would make the information quite useful for reporting and searching.

Environment is being removed because it is unstructured and poorly used, and it 
looks like you have voted in favour of this?

If Platform cannot be made into an editable multi-select list, we will probably 
not make it mandatory. Here we’re trying to gauge an ideal end state - some 
things may need revisiting if JIRA does not play ball, though that should not 
affect many items.

> Ariel
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, at 2:12 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote:
>> Ok, so after an initial flurry everyone has lost interest :)
>> I think we should take a quick poll (not a vote), on people’s positions 
>> on the questions raised so far.  If people could try to take the time to 
>> stake a +1/-1, or A/B, for each item, that would be really great.  This 
>> poll will not be the end of discussions, but will (hopefully) at least 
>> draw a line under the current open questions.
>> I will start with some verbiage, then summarise with options for 
>> everyone to respond to.  You can scroll to the summary immediately if 
>> you like.
>> - 1. Component: Multi-select or Cascading-select (i.e. only one 
>> component possible per ticket, but neater UX)
>> - 2. Labels: rather than litigate people’s positions, I propose we do 
>> the least controversial thing, which is to simply leave labels intact, 
>> and only supplement them with the new schema information.  We can later 
>> revisit if we decide it’s getting messy.
>> - 3. "First review completed; second review ongoing": I don’t think we 
>> need to complicate the process; if there are two reviews in flight, the 
>> first reviewer can simply comment that they are done when ready, and the 
>> second reviewer can move the status once they are done.  If the first 
>> reviewer wants substantive changes, they can move the status to "Change 
>> Request” before the other reviewer completes, if they like.  Everyone 
>> involved can probably negotiate this fairly well, but we can introduce 
>> some specific guidance on how to conduct yourself here in a follow-up.  
>> - 4. Priorities: Option A: Wish, Low, Normal, High, Urgent; Option B: 
>> Wish, Low, Normal, Urgent
>> - 5. Mandatory Platform and Feature. Make mandatory by introducing new 
>> “All” and “None” (respectively) options, so always possible to select an 
>> option.
>> - 6. Environment field: Remove?
>> I think this captures everything that has been brought up so far, except 
>> for the suggestion to make "Since Version” a “Version” - but that needs 
>> more discussion, as I don’t think there’s a clear alternative proposal 
>> yet.
>> Summary:
>> 1: Component. (A) Multi-select; (B) Cascading-select
>> 2: Labels: leave alone +1/-1
>> 3: No workflow changes for first/second review: +1/-1
>> 4: Priorities: Including High +1/-1
>> 5: Mandatory Platform and Feature: +1/-1
>> 6: Remove Environment field: +1/-1
>> I will begin.
>> 1: A
>> 2: +1
>> 3: +1
>> 4: +1
>> 5: Don’t mind
>> 6: +1
>>> On 29 Nov 2018, at 22:04, Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote:
>>> If I read Josh’s reply right, I think the suggestion is to periodically 
>>> review active labels and promote those that are demonstrably useful to 
>>> components (cf. folksonomy -> 
>>> taxonomy<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy#Folksonomy_vs._taxonomy>).
>>>  I hadn’t read the reply as indicating that labels should be zero’d out 
>>> periodically. In any case, I agree that reviewing active labels and 
>>> re-evaluating our taxonomy from time to time sounds great; I don’t think 
>>> I’d zero them, though.
>>> Responding to a few comments:
>>> –––
>>> – To Joey’s question about issues languishing in Triage: I like the idea of 
>>> an SLO for the “triage” state. I am happy to commit time and resources to 
>>> triaging newly-reported issues, and to JIRA pruning/gardening in general. I 
>>> spent part of the weekend before last adding components to a few hundred 
>>> open issues and preparing the Confluence reports mentioned in the other 
>>> thread. It was calming. We can also figure out how to rotate / share this 
>>> responsibility.
>>> – Labels discussion: If we adopt a more structured component hierarchy to 
>>> treat as our primary method of organization, keep labels around for people 
>>> to use as they’d like (e.g., for custom JQL queries useful to their 
>>> workflows), and periodically promote those that are widely useful, I think 
>>> that sounds like a fine outcome.
>>> – On Sankalp’s question of issue reporter / new contributor burden: I 
>>> actually think the pruning of fields on the “new issue form” makes 
>>> reporting issues easier and ensures that information we need is captured. 
>>> Having the triage step will also provide a nice task queue for screening 
>>> bugs, and ensures a contributor’s taken a look + screened appropriately 
>>> (rather than support requests immediately being marked “Critical/Blocker” 
>>> and assigned a fix version by the reporter).
>>> – On Sankalp’s question of the non-committer’s workflow during first pass 
>>> of review, I think that’s covered here: 
>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals#JIRAWorkflowProposals-Workflow
>>> –––
>>> I also want to step back and thank Benedict and Kurt for all of their 
>>> analysis and information architecture work behind this proposal. "Workflow 
>>> and bug tracker hygiene” can be a thankless endeavor; I want to make sure 
>>> this one’s not. Thank you both!
>>> If we’re nearing consensus on “keeping labels, and considering them for 
>>> promotion to components periodically,” are there other items we need to 
>>> resolve before we generally feel good about the changes?
>>> – Scott
>>> On November 26, 2018 at 3:14:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith 
>>> (bened...@apache.org<mailto:bened...@apache.org>) wrote:
>>> Hmm. On re-reading your earlier email, I realise I may have anyway gotten 
>>> confused about your suggestion.
>>> Are you suggesting we periodically clear any new labels, once we have 
>>> replacements, and only leave the old ones that exist today and haven’t been 
>>> categorised?
>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 23:02, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Do we maintain a list of prior rejects? Revisit any that have increased in 
>>>> usage since last?
>>>> Probably we’re bike shedding this one thing too closely. I would be happy 
>>>> with removing it, periodically cleaning it, or leaving it intact. Mining 
>>>> it for schema changes, or telling people to ask.
>>>> But I fear it will all begin to go to pot again after this effort wanes, 
>>>> and my life has only one JIRA cleanup effort to call upon.
>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 18:24, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'm thinking something like "Every 6 months, we query on labels with count
>>>>>> = 4 and consider promoting those. Anything < that only shows if people 
>>>>>> are
>>>>> specifically looking for it."
>>>>> Taking count of occurrence of a label as a proxy for the potential value 
>>>>> in
>>>>> promoting it to something hardened isn't without flaws, but it's also not
>>>>> awful IMO.
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith 
>>>>> <bened...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all of 
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> knowing they're there? =/
>>>>>> It would at least make it easier to triage the ‘new' ones and promote
>>>>>> them. The pain of actually categorising the labels was high, and doing
>>>>>> that every time would mean it never happens (though maybe there are ways 
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> work around this). I also think there’s value in shedding noisy data, in
>>>>>> an active process to promote good hygiene.
>>>>>> But who said our state of mind isn’t also important :)
>>>>>> This isn’t something I’ll fight hard for, though, I can see it’s at least
>>>>>> partially a preference for cleanliness. Interested to see what others
>>>>>> think.
>>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 17:28, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> An alternative route might be to support labels, and (e.g.) bi-annually
>>>>>>>> promote any useful ones to the schema, and clear the rest?
>>>>>>> +1 to promoting, probably should case-by-case the clearing (but mostly
>>>>>> just
>>>>>>> clear)
>>>>>>> The present labels are much too painful to clean up. I categorised the
>>>>>> top
>>>>>>>> 100 or so, and will migrate them (there’s a CSV embedded in the 
>>>>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>> you can look at). The rest have < 5 occurrences, so I cannot see what
>>>>>>>> value they really provide us.
>>>>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all of 
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> knowing they're there? =/
>>>>>>> I _think_ several of your concerns are addressed by the new Triage 
>>>>>>> state.
>>>>>>>> The idea is for users to create a ticket without any field 
>>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>>> Contributors should liaise with the user to understand the problem, and
>>>>>>>> transition it to Open.
>>>>>>> Shit, my bad, totally missed / didn't grok that. That makes a lot more
>>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>>> bened...@apache.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I failed to respond to point (2) in the aggregate email.
>>>>>>>> I’m not sure it’s worth complicating the flow for this scenario, as the
>>>>>>>> ticket can simply return to ‘Patch Available’. But, I’m really unsure
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the best option here. Does anyone else have any strong opinions /
>>>>>> thoughts?
>>>>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 14:33, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I have following initial comments on the proposal.
>>>>>>>>> 1. Creating a JIRA should have few fields mandatory like platform,
>>>>>>>> version, etc. We want to put less burden on someone creating a ticket
>>>>>> but I
>>>>>>>> feel these are required for opening bugs.
>>>>>>>>> 2. What is the flow when a non committer does the first pass of 
>>>>>>>>> review?
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Removal of labels: one of the strengths of the current model is
>>>>>>>>>> flexibility for groupings of concepts to arise from a 
>>>>>>>>>> user-perspective
>>>>>>>>>> (lhf, etc). Calcifying the label concepts into components, 
>>>>>>>>>> categories,
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>> is a strict loss of functionality for users to express and categorize
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>> concerns with the project. This feels like an over-correction to our
>>>>>>>>>> current lack of discipline cleaning up one-off labels.
>>>>>> Counter-proposal:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. We beef up the categories and components as proposed and migrate
>>>>>>>>>> labels to those
>>>>>>>>>> 2. We remove the one-off labels that aren't adding value, considering
>>>>>>>>>> aggregating similar labels
>>>>>>>>>> 3. We leave the "labels" field intact, perhaps with a bit of guidance
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> how to effectively use it
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Required fields on transition: assuming these are required upon
>>>>>>>> *issue
>>>>>>>>>> creation*, that's placing a significant burden on a user that's seen
>>>>>>>>>> something and wants to open a ticket about it, but isn't sure if it's
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> "Semantic Failure" or a "Consistency Failure", for instance. If this
>>>>>> is,
>>>>>>>>>> instead, a field required for transition to other ticket states by 
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> developer working on it, I think that makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Priority Changes: to be blunt, this looks like shuffling chairs on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> deck of the titanic on this one - in my experience, most users aren't
>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>> to set the priority on tickets when they open them (hence default ==
>>>>>>>> major
>>>>>>>>>> and most tickets are opened as major), so this is something that will
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>> either a) left alone so as not to offend those for whom the priority
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> *actually* major or consistent with the default, or b) changed by the
>>>>>>>> dev
>>>>>>>>>> anyway and the added signal from a new "High vs. Urgent" distinction
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> communication of developer intent to engage with a ticket is 
>>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>>>> that'll be lost on most users that are just reporting something. I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> have a meaningful counter-proposal at this point as the current
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> more about UX on this field than the signal / noise on the field
>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>>> IMO.
>>>>>>>>>> A meta question about the "What and Why" of what we're trying to
>>>>>>>> accomplish
>>>>>>>>>> here: it sounds like what you're looking at is:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. to capture more information
>>>>>>>>>> 2. simplify the data entry
>>>>>>>>>> 3. nudge people towards more complete and accurate data entry
>>>>>>>>>> 4. our ability as a project to measure release quality over time and
>>>>>>>>>> identify when Cassandra is ready for (or due a) release.
>>>>>>>>>> The proposal in its current form makes certain strong inroads in all
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> those 4 metrics, but I think the major thing missing is the UX of 
>>>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> we're thinking about changing:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. Making it easy for / reduce friction for users to report bugs and
>>>>>>>>>> requests into the project JIRA (easy to do things right, hard to do
>>>>>>>> things
>>>>>>>>>> wrong) (current proposal is a +1 on "do things right", though I'd
>>>>>> argue
>>>>>>>>>> against it being *easy*)
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Asking from the users what they can provide about their experience
>>>>>>>>>> and issues and no more
>>>>>>>>>> Philosophically, are we trying to make it easier for people that are
>>>>>>>> paid
>>>>>>>>>> FT to work on C*, are we trying to make things easier for *users* of
>>>>>> C*,
>>>>>>>>>> both, neither? Who are we targeting here w/these project changes and
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>>>> of their issues / problems are we trying to improve?
>>>>>>>>>> And lastly: the TLC and management of the JIRA aspects of this 
>>>>>>>>>> project
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> *definitely* languished (not pointing any fingers here, I'm *at 
>>>>>>>>>> least*
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> guilty as anyone on this :) ) - so a big thanks to you and whomever
>>>>>>>> you've
>>>>>>>>>> collaborate with in getting this conversation started!
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:39 AM Benedict Elliott Smith <
>>>>>>>> bened...@apache.org>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> We’ve concluded our efforts to produce a proposal for changes to the
>>>>>>>> JIRA
>>>>>>>>>>> workflow, and they can be found here:
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals
>>>>>>>>>>> <
>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals
>>>>>>>>>>> I hope there will be broad consensus, but I’m sure it won’t be plain
>>>>>>>>>>> sailing. It would be great to get a discussion going around the
>>>>>>>> proposal,
>>>>>>>>>>> so please take some time to read and respond if you think you’ll
>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> strong opinion on this topic.
>>>>>>>>>>> There remains an undecided question in our initial proposal, that is
>>>>>>>>>>> highlighted in the wiki. Specifically, there was no seemingly
>>>>>>>> objective
>>>>>>>>>>> winner for the suggested changes to Component (though I have a
>>>>>>>> preference,
>>>>>>>>>>> that I will express in the ensuing discussion).
>>>>>>>>>>> Other contentious issues may be:
>>>>>>>>>>> - The removal of ‘labels’ - which is very noisy, the vast majority 
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> which provide no value, and we expect can be superseded by other
>>>>>>>> suggestions
>>>>>>>>>>> - The introduction of required fields for certain transitions, some
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> which are new (complexity, severity, bug/feature category)
>>>>>>>>>>> - The introduction of some new transitions (Triage, Review in
>>>>>> Progress,
>>>>>>>>>>> Change Requested)
>>>>>>>>>>> Look forward to hearing your thoughts!
>>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org

Reply via email to