Dear All While the Opencast board would not like to intervene in any decision-making amongst committers, we would like to offer help in accordance with the governance regulations [1] in order to maintain an environment for committers and contributors to work efficiently.
The board actually discussed a related issue (improvement in QA) during its last meeting, so we would like to thank Greg for the additional wake-up call and the suggestions to remedy the current austerity of community contributions. The board came to a similar conclusion in that the "institutional leads" should play a more prominent role in helping committers and contributors allocate (more) time to the issues we share as a community keen to further develop Matterhorn. Our interpretation is that this collides with local issues sometimes and we couldn't expect committers and contributors to solve resulting conflicts on their own. Instead, we would like to raise awareness with institutional heads, whether they come from academia or a commercial background, that they have to find a balance between local issues, further developments, and the necessary community contributions, whether these are bug fixes, QA, documentation or other activities for the good of the project. The board will therefore contact institutional leads over the next couple of days in order to communicate and clarify how the situation highlighted by Greg can be addressed short term. As always, feedback is welcome. The Opencast Board [1] http://opencast.org/opencast-governance. > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [email protected] [mailto:community- > [email protected]] Im Auftrag von Greg Logan > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. September 2012 06:22 > An: [email protected] > Cc: Opencast Matterhorn; Matterhorn Users > Betreff: Re: [Opencast] [Opencast Matterhorn] Please Read: Discussions at the > developers meeting today #proposal > > On 9/12/2012 1:50 AM, Rubén Pérez wrote: > > I'm +1 for the 3 months proposed by Xavier. I'd even say 2 instead, > > but one month does not really make a difference. I agree 1 month can be too > short. > > > > I'm +1 for the rest of Michelle's proposals. I also like Xavier's idea > > of classifying the developers by areas of expertise. > > 3 months seems reasonable to me. I definitely understand that local issues > are > unavoidable sometimes, and I'm not trying to be unreasonable, but I did want > to > stimulate discussion around ensuring that we know who is actually active and > who > has moved on to other projects. I think I've succeeded on that point! It's > good to > see a number of people, both committers and other community members, come > out of the woodwork almost immediately to point out better solutions. > > This will no doubt come up at the next developer meeting, but Xavier's > suggestion > of listing areas of competence is something we should absolutely follow up on. > Not only will it be useful for us as committers so that we can see who knows > which > parts of the system, but it will also be useful for users and (potential) > contributors > so they know who they can address detailed technical questions to on list. > > G > > > Regards > > > > Rubén Pérez > > TELTEK Video Research > > www.teltek.es > > > > > > > > 2012/9/12 Xavier Butty <[email protected]> > > > >> Hi, > >> > >>> 3 (Proposal). Continuing from point 2, committers who have not > >>> contributed in more than a month will retire to committers emeritus. > >>> Hopefully this will prompt our institutional leads to commit to > >>> public Matterhorn development. > >> -1: I also think that one month is too short. If people are in > >> holidays or other (like the 3 annual weeks of military services for > >> us in Switzerland), a month is quickly over. > >> But 6 month is too long as well. If you are not able to > >> commit/contribute something during 6 month, it definitely means that > >> you are not active. Therefore --> committers emeritus. > >> 3 month would be a good compromise. > >> > >>> 4 (Proposal). We keep a list of committers and their organizations > >>> on the front project (or wiki, whichever's easiest) page. This will > >>> highlight those who are contributing. > >> +1: Should we also list the committers per fields of competence. It > >> +could > >> help to assign/contact someone to work on tickets and assign the > >> related people for the code reviews. > >> > >> Xavier > >> > >> On Sep 11, 2012, at 6:24 PM, Greg Logan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi folks, > >>> > >>> Sorry for the crosspost, but I wanted to make sure I hit everyone. > >>> As we sat at the dev meeting today, we realized that our normal > >>> ticket review would be silly because no tickets had been resolved in > >>> the last week. After much discussion, we came to a few conclusions: > >>> > >>> A. We have little to no visibility of actual developer availability. > >>> We don't know how much time in a given week that a developer has to > >>> work on public Matterhorn related tickets. > >>> > >>> B. The attendance in the developer meeting has been going steadily > >>> down hill. In theory, if you have commit privileges you are > >>> expected to attend these meetings. This hasn't been happening. > >>> > >>> C. Tasks which are assigned frequently don't get finished (see > >>> point A), but tasks which are unassigned are extremely unlikely to > >>> ever be addressed given that very few developers are looking through > >>> the unassigned task list. > >>> > >>> To address these issues, we propose that the project will try the > >> following: > >>> > >>> 1. We ask that the committers and developers let us know how much > >>> time they have tasked to public Matterhorn tasks. I'm going to be > >>> working with the board to try and get these numbers nailed down. > >>> There's no shame in not having any time to work on Matterhorn, but > >>> if you don't have time then your tickets won't get done, which leads to > >>> point 2. > >>> > >>> 2. Developers should go through their tickets, and unassign those > >>> which they do not have the time to work on. If you're currently > >>> working on it mark it as in progress and post a comment explaining > >>> where you are, and if you're going to do it but haven't had a chance > >>> yet then put a comment on the ticket explaining what's blocking your > >>> progress. Concentrate on the 1.4 tickets for now. In one week I > >>> will be going through and unassigning tickets which have not been updated > >>> in > a week. > >>> > >>> 3 (Proposal). Continuing from point 2, committers who have not > >>> contributed in more than a month will retire to committers emeritus. > >>> Hopefully this will prompt our institutional leads to commit to > >>> public Matterhorn development. > >>> > >>> 4 (Proposal). We keep a list of committers and their organizations > >>> on the front project (or wiki, whichever's easiest) page. This will > >>> highlight those who are contributing. > >>> > >>> 5. To address B, I'm going to revive Adam Hochmans' habit of > >>> setting a developer meeting agenda ahead of time. Every week I'm > >>> going to call out a specific group of developers to come forward and > >>> explain what they are working on, and what is blocking their > >>> progress. This doesn't need to be 20 minutes, but it should be 5 to 10. > >>> > >>> 6. To address C, I'm going to start sending out emails containing a > >>> summary of the unassigned bugs for the current release. This will > >>> increase the visibility of these tickets so that developers become > >>> aware of them and address them. > >>> > >>> Please note the two proposals. Voting begins now, and lasts for 72 > >> hours. > >>> > >>> G > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Matterhorn mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn > >>> > >>> > >>> To unsubscribe please email > >>> [email protected] > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Community mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community > >> > >> > >> To unsubscribe please email > >> [email protected] > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Community mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > > > > > To unsubscribe please email > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
