It makes sense to let to mini-teams to triage the issues, but the decision
whether to put or not on the sprint still should be addressed by whole
team, or at least acknowledged.


Ina Panova
Software Engineer| Pulp| Red Hat Inc.

"Do not go where the path may lead,
 go instead where there is no path and leave a trail."

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:29 AM, Daniel Alley <> wrote:

> I'm fine with this.  I dislike the idea of multiple meetings but I think
> that what will end up happening is that the issue load for each project
> individually will be low enough that they will can and will all end up
> being handled asynchronously as they come in.  I also think that letting
> each plugin decide what is best for them.
> But just to throw this out there, there are a few other things we could do
> to help address the problem.
> We could modify the triage bot to group the issues by type instead of
> listing them chronologically by number.  All core issues would be handled
> first, followed by the plugin with the largest number of issues, followed
> by the plugin with the next largest, etc.  The triage bot could know the
> composition of the plugin teams and ping the relevant members when a group
> of issues that concerns them comes up.
> Pros:
> - No concerns about lack of cross-pollination, everything is still
> completely transparent
>     - Community members could still be involved and/or observe the
> process, which they can't do if every plugin meeting is separate and done
> in email or IRC
> Cons:
> - If you're involved in triaging issues a couple minutes apart, what can
> you _really_ do in that time?
>     - Multiple interruptions, not *necessarily* gaining much efficiency
>     - Triage lead still would still have to be involved the entire time,
> whereas ideally someone directly involved with that plugin would be in
> control
> - Triage would still take a long time, and would hold up #pulp-dev for
> that duration
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Brian Bouterse <>
> wrote:
>> Currently the biweekly triage query includes a large number of unrelated
>> topics: Pulp, RPM, Puppet, Python, Ansible (the pulp3 role plugin),
>> Packaging, OS Tree, Crane, Docker, External, and File Support. These are
>> all different top-level projects in Redmine. These are so
>> many specializations I think it makes sense to have issues triaged by just
>> the people who focus on them. Also once per week may or may not be the
>> right frequency for all of these things which could bring people into
>> meetings they may not contribute to or benefit from. +1 to having plugin
>> teams triage issues how they want.
>> For Ansible for example, @daviddavis and I can just talk about issues as
>> they come it. I have it set to email me when they are filed, so we don't
>> need a meeting at all.
>> What about a gradual transition? If/when plugin/project committers decide
>> to do it differently, then can email pulp-dev asking to be removed and
>> someone can update the query.
>> What do you think?
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:47 AM, David Davis <>
>> wrote:
>>> At our last retrospective, we discussed the possibility of not triaging
>>> plugin issues as part of our biweekly triage sessions. We didn’t reach an
>>> agreement so I took the action item to start a discussion on pulp-dev.
>>> First off some benefits of not triaging plugin issues as part of our
>>> triage sessions:
>>> - If we let plugin teams triage their own issues, they can select a time
>>> when the whole team is able to meet. Our biweekly meeting tends to only
>>> involve a subsets of plugin teams.
>>> - Time is wasted when plugin issues come up and usually just the plugin
>>> team members discuss it.
>>> - We don’t have a consistent policy around which plugin issues we
>>> triage. For instance, we don’t triage pulp_deb.
>>> There are some downsides however:
>>> - I think the biggest issue is that there’ll be less transparency into
>>> plugins. This could lead to more siloing and less cross-pollination.
>>> - Potentially more meetings if all plugins decide to schedule their own
>>> triage meetings.
>>> - Plugin issues could go untriaged if plugin teams aren’t responsible.
>>> A couple solutions to the problem that were proposed:
>>> - Ask plugin teams schedule their own triage meetings. They could
>>> probably do this on a less regular basis.
>>> - Have plugin teams triage their issues how they want. This could even
>>> be asynchronously as issues come in. Could be done via IRC/email/etc.
>>> I think at the least it might be worth trying out an alternative
>>> approach for a limited time (e.g. 2 months) and then reevaluating. Thoughts?
>>> David
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pulp-dev mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pulp-dev mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
Pulp-dev mailing list

Reply via email to