Hi Emmanuelle
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016, at 14:38, Emmanuelle Gouillart wrote:
> 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.
What I liked about Zube is that it has the potential to give you a good
"bird's eye view" of PRs. We could probably achieve the same using
(tags + some script), or (tags + gh-board). But it's good to know
what's being worked on, what's on the back-burner, etc. in one glance.
I don't care too much about metrics and burndown charts etc., which I
think are less applicable to a community driven project.
> - when a PR is stalling and the contributor is not responding, we should
> either take over if possible, or close it after some warnings.
We should feel confident to triage more aggressively. Open tickets that
hang around also sap resources, in making it harder to find the right
things to work on when you only have a little bit of time.
> - 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 think this ties in with your next point. It's hard to track
calendars; perhaps more practical is to track commitment? There is
already a (dangerous) notion of "first person to comment essentially
owns the review for the PR", but we should make it more explicit: both
so that folks don't feel afraid to review PRs ("oh no, I'm becoming
responsible for this thing!") and so that there is someone actively
watching over its progress. That way, we can also easily find PRs that
have no "owners".
> - 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.
I like this idea; I've been wondering how we could move "ownership" of
the project around to create better focus and more autonomy, and this
may be a good, gentle start to that.
I'd be curious how others felt about this idea?
> 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.
Growing the core team is crucial. Our user base is growing nicely, but
that is not helpful unless we convert a certain percentage of those
users to contributors. And it should be clear to contributors that
reviewing is a priority and a good way to become involved (everyone
wants to code, though :).
We have a document (http://scikit-image.org/docs/stable/contribute.html)
that invites users to contribute, but we can simplify those instructions
for newcomers, and also add a "Please help us review some code" button
on the front page?
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/1472577988.761451.710591665.5D8E3C44%40webmail.messagingengine.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
