Re: Call for Channels work

[Tom Christie]

> if you can work on drafting a call that would be great

Sure, sounds like a sensible place to start.
I won't get onto anything immediately, but I'll start to have a think about 
spec'ing it out at some point.

(Other offers/progress on this from anyone also welcome in the meantime 
tho')

> Why would this write you out of pitching for it, though?

Yes, fair point.

  - Tom

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/19d8ca9f-723b-4374-add6-81ede20312e5%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Call for Channels work

[Andrew Godwin]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Tom Christie 
wrote:

> > we don't have a mechanism to delegate the "what should we build" part of
> the question for work other than channels.
>
> I guess there's two aspects to that.
>
> 1. Do Mozilla allow some flex in meeting the proposal / do we have an
> differing priorities now / do we want to discuss what those should be?
>

We're allowed some flex as long as it's roughly within the bounds, is my
understanding; certainly I would say as long as we meet the terms of the
proposal (implementing request/response improvements) we're good.


> 2. Breaking down request parsing/response rendering, as initially
> described in the proposal, into a call for work. (Assuming we do want to
> include it?)
>

Yes, we need to; I just don't have the bandwidth to manage the work calls
for that as well as the Channels side.


>
> Given the release timelines I don't think we're in any great rush to make
> decisions here - 1.11 isn't due til April '17.
>
> Couple of options:
>
> * Plan to make a firm decision at the core team meeting in Django Under
> the Hood, having solicited feedback more widely first?
> * I could take on drafting up a call for work on the request/response
> portion. If there's a strong applicant for it, then we'd have plenty of
> time for it to start making its way in, without being remotely up against
> an alpha release deadline. (That way around would rather write me out of
> being an applicant, but might work well if we get the right person on
> board, and there might be scope for an a review/advisory role from Tim or
> myself)
>
> No firm opinions at this point, myself.
>
>
I'd like us to get going on this earlier than November, but I can't offer
much extra time towards it; if you can work on drafting a call that would
be great. Why would this write you out of pitching for it, though?

Andrew

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1urjd7bp%3Dr6jnq8b%3DuwHHLX-oKuRCPWTw4ax-Bo%2BS_CQnQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Call for Channels work

[Tom Christie]

> we don't have a mechanism to delegate the "what should we build" part of 
the question for work other than channels.

I guess there's two aspects to that.

1. Do Mozilla allow some flex in meeting the proposal / do we have an 
differing priorities now / do we want to discuss what those should be?
2. Breaking down request parsing/response rendering, as initially described 
in the proposal, into a call for work. (Assuming we do want to include it?)

Given the release timelines I don't think we're in any great rush to make 
decisions here - 1.11 isn't due til April '17.

Couple of options:

* Plan to make a firm decision at the core team meeting in Django Under the 
Hood, having solicited feedback more widely first?
* I could take on drafting up a call for work on the request/response 
portion. If there's a strong applicant for it, then we'd have plenty of 
time for it to start making its way in, without being remotely up against 
an alpha release deadline. (That way around would rather write me out of 
being an applicant, but might work well if we get the right person on 
board, and there might be scope for an a review/advisory role from Tim or 
myself)

No firm opinions at this point, myself.

  Tom

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/c5e5e0e0-894d-4580-9a1a-2fa9267e334b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Call for Channels work

[Jacob Kaplan-Moss]

Hi Tom -

This is a great question, and thanks for asking it. The short version is
"we're not quite sure yet, and we need to work this bit out."

To go into more details, first I need to explain a bit about how the MOSS
committee (of which I'm a part) works, and what it is and isn't doing.

Specifically, I want to note that we're *not* making technical decisions.
So when it comes to Channels work, Andrew is the "technical lead" (for want
of a better term), so delegating decisions about what to do to him. Our job
is to ensure that we're spending the MOSS money effectively, so what we do
is:

- review proposals to make sure we believe the person is capable of
completing the work they've proposed, and that the budget they're proposing
is reasonable (this is very similar to how we might review a GSoC proposal,
with the added wrinkle of reviewing financial quotes)
- review the completed work to double-check that the task is complete
- coordinate between people doing the work and the DSF to get invoices paid

You'll note that nowhere are we deciding things like "should this thing be
built?" -- we're judging "can this person build the thing, and are they
charging appropriately for their work?". This is a fairly deliberate
choice, which mimics the way the DSF doesn't tell the core developer team
what to build, but instead tries to spend its money in a way that helps the
core team build what they want to build.

So here's where things get sticky: what do we do about non-Channels work?
As you note, the MOSS money was earmarked for more than just Channels. But,
we don't have a mechanism to delegate the "what should we build" part of
the question for work other than channels.

We need to work this part out, and I'll take ownership of finding an answer
here. If you have any suggestions, I would really love to hear 'em.

Jacob

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Tom Christie 
wrote:

> Do the Django MOSS committee have any plans for the request
> parsing/response rendering portion of the Django MOSS proposal?
>
> I'm assuming that any of the following could be reasonable choices:
>
> * Expecting to issue a call for work in due course, but treating channels
> as the priority for now.
> * Defer any decisions on it until the channels portion is deemed
> sufficiently complete.
> * Decide that it's no longer regarded as a priority and use the resource
> elsewhere.
> * Decide that it would conflict with the REST framework MOSS grant and use
> the resource elsewhere.
>
> Asking more from a stand-point of transparency, than trying to push for a
> 'call for work' to be issued.
> Personally, the second option on that list probably sounds like the best
> overall choice at the moment, but I think any could be valid.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   Tom
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/f1b3bf18-b8dd-49c9-8b34-9125a2ff9d6e%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAK8PqJEFW0DC8_qbwCz827grP9bDqqhbgY_yxsM67ZYWdKSSFw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Call for Channels work

[Tom Christie]

Do the Django MOSS committee have any plans for the request 
parsing/response rendering portion of the Django MOSS proposal?

I'm assuming that any of the following could be reasonable choices:

* Expecting to issue a call for work in due course, but treating channels 
as the priority for now.
* Defer any decisions on it until the channels portion is deemed 
sufficiently complete.
* Decide that it's no longer regarded as a priority and use the resource 
elsewhere.
* Decide that it would conflict with the REST framework MOSS grant and use 
the resource elsewhere.

Asking more from a stand-point of transparency, than trying to push for a 
'call for work' to be issued.
Personally, the second option on that list probably sounds like the best 
overall choice at the moment, but I think any could be valid.

Cheers,

  Tom

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/f1b3bf18-b8dd-49c9-8b34-9125a2ff9d6e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Call for Channels work

[Andrew Godwin]

Hi everyone,

We finally have everything in place to pay people from the MOSS funds given
to us by Mozilla for Channels (and more importantly we now have the money
itself), so now I'd like to open the call for help.

We have a list of tasks that need doing in Channels, and the money to pay
people for it, so we would, naturally, like to find people we can pay that
money to. Cruicially, we are *pre-approving* people to work on projects
with a daily (or similar) rate; we don't want people to complete something
and then not get what they expected, have someone do a fixed quote and end
up not being able to finish, or have two people go after the same task.

The list of things that needs doing is here:
https://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/ChannelsTasks

If you'd like to work on one of these things, get in touch with me directly
(and...@aeracode.org) to discuss the task and what's involved; once you're
fully briefed and think you have a handle on the work, our separate Django
MOSS committee will take over approval of the request. (I am not on that
committee for conflict of interest reasons, but am trying to help out where
I can with the process)

Like GSOC, we expect people applying to work on these tasks to have at
least some track record of contributing to open source and working with
Django or a similar project; we are unlikely to approve someone with no
visible experience.

The most pressing issues are all test-related - specifically around
building out a comprehensive test suite around Daphne and the workers, and
getting load testing and similar trials done on the code so it can start to
be honed for full release. If you're at all interested in this work, I
strongly encourage you to get in touch.

If you have any questions, feel free to respond here or email me directly!

Andrew

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFwN1ur1iP%2BCwCkC5_3AFGCqqY3kx7djT8s_VNVPd0cc-cOZig%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.