Hi Stéfan, thanks for continuing the discussion on this important subject. I would reformulate your two points as 1) social aspects/community management and 2) technical tools and processes.
In my opinion, we need a little bit of both. Dashboards can be useful if they save time and provide meaningful information that would be painful to retrieve otherwise. One should nevertheless be wary of too many metrics and quantitative indices (a problem that cripples the creativity of scientific research!): it is sometimes very tempting to merge two small PRs instead of spending time on a single difficult one. I don't have much to say about the 2nd point since I don't know the tool. For the 1st point, here are some ideas and suggestions from the top of my head - assigning / self-assigning PRs might be a good idea, as Juan suggested - when a PR is stalling and the contributor is not responding, we should either take over if possible, or close it after some warnings. - keeping a good balance between the number of active contributors and active reviewers is hard. Recently several people have contributed several PRs, demonstrating an expertise in some domain of image processing. Maybe we should ask them whether they would be willing to review PRs and be more active in including these persons. - in the core team, maybe we should say more explicitely when we are or are not available (announce it somewhere? have a google calendar?). I know that there are periods of time where I can't spend any time on scikit-image, it can be weeks or even months. If the rest of the team had such information for every core member, it would save time because someone else could try to take over. We could also have pairs of people with similar expertise (segmentation, computer vision, architecture, etc.), who could work in pairs and replace the other person when one is not available. - we could take turns to be in charge of checking the global advance of PRs. It's a pain of a job, but if it's one week every two months it's not so bad. Here are my 2 cents. I think it's a question of focussing our resources better, and maybe empowering new people, because I'm not sure we can spend much more time on the reviewing process. Cheers, Emma On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 01:17:48PM -0700, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi, everyone > As Juan mentioned recently, it's becoming harder to keep track of the > motion of the project as a whole. Sometimes, tickets lounge unattended > for an unacceptable long time. > I can think of two main routes for improving the situation: > 1) Improve our team structure, so that individuals take responsibility > for moving certain aspects of the project forward. > 2) Processes / systems to help us get a grasp on the current state of > things > I have some ideas around (1) that need fleshing out, but in the mean > time I was looking at http://zube.io to address part of (2). > Do you have any experience with this system? Zube can be compared > against HuBoard, gh-board, and ZenHub. A test scikit-image board is > here: https://zube.io/projects/4670/kanban (it's vanilla, I haven't > done anything with it yet) > Let me hear your thoughts. > Stéfan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scikit-image" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scikit-image+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send an email to scikit-image@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scikit-image/20160829213818.GE1302378%40phare.normalesup.org. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.