Stream: t-compiler/wg-prioritization

Topic: planning meeting 2020-04-06


Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 01:31, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization just in case the meeting is happening at 7pm UTC, I’ve just fixed the compiler team calendar event because it was scheduled for 10pm UTC

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

just in case the meeting starts in 4 hours 53 minutes :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 14:07, on Zulip):

remember to review and add more ideas to the Master document

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 18:45, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization this meeting starts in 15 minutes

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:00, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization :wave:, please add a :wave: to know who is participating

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:00, on Zulip):

(deleted)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:00, on Zulip):

so, I've create this Master doc

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:01, on Zulip):

there you will find things that we should discuss, plan and later work on

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:01, on Zulip):

the important part is the Tasks section

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:02, on Zulip):

those are kind of titles of things that you will find in the Ideas document

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:02, on Zulip):

I think I can paste them all here and we can start planning

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:02, on Zulip):
DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:02, on Zulip):

I would like to introduce 2 people who showed interest in joining this wg - @Amadeusine and @o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:03, on Zulip):

welcome!

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:03, on Zulip):

so ... is all that more or less clear?

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur (Apr 06 2020 at 19:03, on Zulip):

Hi, thank you! Super excited to be here :)

Amadeusine (Apr 06 2020 at 19:04, on Zulip):

Hello everyone, and it's clear. :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:04, on Zulip):

well I've considered the What is a "critical" bug the most urgent thing to do

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:04, on Zulip):

mainly because we would need to add P-critical

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:05, on Zulip):

the idea there would be to have critical, high, medium, low at least for now and document each of the different priorities

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:06, on Zulip):

unsure if I have too much to say about this one unless someone wants to add something ?

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:06, on Zulip):

I just want to echo that

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:06, on Zulip):

I personally wasn't sure what the different priorities meant and I've been around here a while

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:06, on Zulip):

So having them actually documented would be very helpful

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:07, on Zulip):

yes

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:07, on Zulip):

I'm not entirely sure how imp't the other priorities are

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:07, on Zulip):

I was talking with Niko and actually once we have stuff documented we should push to forge

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:07, on Zulip):

is the list in Define & Document exhaustive? or just a rough guide?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:07, on Zulip):

nikomatsakis said:

I'm not entirely sure how imp't the other priorities are

yeah, mainly P-medium and P-low

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:08, on Zulip):

I feel like I'd like to be able to say "what it means" to have each priority -- I did like @pnkfelix's suggestion of using "frequency with which we will check on progress", which is very concrete

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:08, on Zulip):

maybe P-critical, P-high and the rest is understandable

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:08, on Zulip):

yeah the frequency idea is in the document too

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:09, on Zulip):

I guess one important thing is ... should we go after the frequency idea now or should we just add P-critical so we can get it going quickly and then move to the hz idea?

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:09, on Zulip):

(though in async-await, and maybe in traits too, we also have a notion of like "sprint" -- i.e, these are the bugs we're trying to do first -- but that's somehow different from "high priority", it's more like an organizational tool than anything; in async-await at least we started using github projects for this)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:10, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

I guess one important thing is ... should we go after the frequency idea now or should we just add P-critical so we can get it going quickly and then move to the hz idea?

@nikomatsakis thoughts about this?

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:10, on Zulip):

I think I would separate them out

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:10, on Zulip):

I guess that P-high's meaning, currently, is something like "if you're looking for something to do, and have experience, this is a good place to start"?

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:11, on Zulip):

P-medium and P-low are kind of identical in practice, it seems

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:11, on Zulip):

yeah I guess we could remove one of those

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:11, on Zulip):

P-critical, P-high and P-medium

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:12, on Zulip):

I think P-low is useful just to say

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:12, on Zulip):

"we decided not to prioritize this"

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:12, on Zulip):

oh, you're just saying "anything that is p-low could become p-medium?

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:12, on Zulip):

feels like we just "shifted by one" :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:13, on Zulip):

well yeah, but the meanings are clearly different

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur (Apr 06 2020 at 19:13, on Zulip):

removing p-medium instead of p-low might nudge people into marking things as p-high when they shouldn't

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:13, on Zulip):

right now all that's marked as P-high would be in the new scheme or P-high or P-critical

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:13, on Zulip):

in a way it's reassering what the meanings were "meant" to be. The original idea was:

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:13, on Zulip):

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur said:

removing p-medium instead of p-low might nudge people into marking things as p-high when they shouldn't

ok, let's leave them all :)

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:14, on Zulip):

ja i'd prefer to add another one, p-medium (without p-low) and p-low mean different things

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:14, on Zulip):

but somehow we got "inflation" around P-high

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:14, on Zulip):

I guess having the 4 then is the right move

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:15, on Zulip):

so then the idea is to document those 4 and create the P-critical label

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:15, on Zulip):

let's move on to the next thing then

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:15, on Zulip):

I think it's useful not to lose the distinction, esp. cause I could imagine this group doing e.g. periodic (say, twice a year...? or just over time...?) reconsideration of medium etc

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:15, on Zulip):

Sometimes it feels like:

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:16, on Zulip):

i'll create the label :slight_smile:

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:17, on Zulip):

we've already covered the next thing which was

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:17, on Zulip):

Define and document: How does the group track critical issues and when to revisit?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:17, on Zulip):

well partially I think

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:18, on Zulip):

we've covered them all

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:18, on Zulip):

I meant, we need to document all the levels and have all the tags

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:18, on Zulip):

let's move on then I'd say

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:18, on Zulip):

P-critical is now a label!

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:18, on Zulip):

cool, we need to document that properly :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:18, on Zulip):

next ...

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:19, on Zulip):

Can we do our process async? what do we need?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:19, on Zulip):

this mainly aims to make the pre-triage meeting async

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:20, on Zulip):

there are anyway some part of the process that at least needs to be checked before the triage meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:20, on Zulip):

like before the meeting I check again if there are new P-critical issues or new nominated stuff

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:20, on Zulip):

we also need to check toolstate, performance, etc

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:21, on Zulip):

but we can move the most time consuming parts of that meeting which are reviewing issues, prioritizing, assigning those, pinging ice breakers, etc

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:21, on Zulip):

those can be done in an async basis

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:22, on Zulip):

seeing the :+1: I guess this is what we want

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:22, on Zulip):

Yes, please :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:22, on Zulip):

so ... what I think we should is to document this

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:22, on Zulip):

:)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:23, on Zulip):

as soon as we have a document we discuss between us to see if the idea looks good and then push it to our compiler-team page or somewhere to explain how do we do our work

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:24, on Zulip):

thoughts?

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:24, on Zulip):

Seems fine to me. Do you want to get into what the idea(s) are now?

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:25, on Zulip):

Or save that for another meeting?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:25, on Zulip):

no no, let's just plan

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:25, on Zulip):

I guess we should maybe assign work but we can leave that for the last 20/15 minutes

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur (Apr 06 2020 at 19:25, on Zulip):

I can try to document this, but I'll need someone with more experience to let me know how it usually goes , and what could be async-ed

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:26, on Zulip):

allow me to jump a bit to this one ...

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:26, on Zulip):

Do we want to split I-nominated label in two different things?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:26, on Zulip):

we have defined that already, right?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:26, on Zulip):

during last weekly

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:27, on Zulip):

Seemed like we were in agreement yeah

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:27, on Zulip):

we should maybe just also do it then :)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:27, on Zulip):

unsure why I've added that one so towards the bottom

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:27, on Zulip):

this is like those easy wins that makes the work easier

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:28, on Zulip):

split the labels into?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:28, on Zulip):

to have I-nominated and I-prioritize

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:28, on Zulip):

https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/weekly.20meeting.202020-04-02.20.2354818/near/192669596

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:29, on Zulip):

let's also do that

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:29, on Zulip):

what I worry the most about labels is who should we notify about this? cc @DPC @nikomatsakis

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:29, on Zulip):

I guess T-release needs to know this information?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:30, on Zulip):

well T-compiler in general needs to know that there's a new label to assess when things need prioritization

Wesley Wiser (Apr 06 2020 at 19:30, on Zulip):

Seems like an IRLO post would be in order as well

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:30, on Zulip):

yes i'll bring it up during the next t-release meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:30, on Zulip):

ok cool, IRLO post and maybe we can also create a zulip topic notifying about this

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:30, on Zulip):

(on 2020-04-17)

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:31, on Zulip):

(re: new label, I wonder btw if we maybe want to update rustbot too? it'd nice to write e.g. @rustbot prioritize or something?)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:31, on Zulip):

just in case what that would do? assign I-prioritize label?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:32, on Zulip):

I guess you're saying this to allow people from outside the org to add that label?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:33, on Zulip):

ok, @nikomatsakis can answer that async

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:33, on Zulip):

let's move on

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:33, on Zulip):

I want to talk about two more things and then I guess we are ready to split work

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:33, on Zulip):

Automate our meeting

nikomatsakis (Apr 06 2020 at 19:33, on Zulip):

(yeah, that's all. I guess it's not really needed since there is that existing syntax @rustbot add label +I-Prioritze or whatever, it's just more complex)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:34, on Zulip):

:+1:, makes sense to simplify then

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:34, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

Automate our meeting

so the idea briefly is to automate our meeting that we are not having anymore because we are moving to async ?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:34, on Zulip):

:P

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:35, on Zulip):

so ... I think this still applies

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:35, on Zulip):

my idea is that the "meeting" should happen anyway

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:36, on Zulip):

I meant, we can move most of the stuff to async but at some point, closer to the meeting me or someone else would need to go over all the process and check everything

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:36, on Zulip):

hopefully we won't need to prioritize bugs or anything like that and with the help of automation this should be faster

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:36, on Zulip):

yeah we would still need the meeting for decision making, just a shorter one

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:37, on Zulip):

well depends on what decision making means

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:37, on Zulip):

I guess we can decide priorities of issues async

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:37, on Zulip):

I'd just open a topic per issue and we can discuss async until we reach a conclusion

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:38, on Zulip):

but all that can be done without any kind of organization, at some point we need to check step by step our process

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:38, on Zulip):

anyway, if more or less what's written makes sense and we have an idea about what to do we can move on

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:39, on Zulip):

we've discussed this also on a separate topic

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:39, on Zulip):

here #t-compiler/wg-prioritization > Automation of the meeting agenda

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:39, on Zulip):

let's move on to the last thing

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:39, on Zulip):

Define areas of the compiler

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:40, on Zulip):

I was talking about this with Niko recently

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:41, on Zulip):

the idea is to have the different areas of the compiler documented and integrated in the rust-lang/team

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:41, on Zulip):

and also we can have per area a set of maintainers

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:41, on Zulip):

we could even go fancy and have directories that each area include and maybe with some kind of heuristic automatically tag PRs and things like that

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 06 2020 at 19:41, on Zulip):

Maybe we can update and adapt the experts map?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:41, on Zulip):

we can also have a tag per area

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:42, on Zulip):

exactly, at the end the idea would be to get rid of it

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:42, on Zulip):

to move experts map into this schema

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:42, on Zulip):

but I guess I can keep moving that thing

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:42, on Zulip):

so I guess we can spend this last minutes splitting some of this things

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:43, on Zulip):

going to add names next to task in the master document

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:43, on Zulip):

sorry for my tardiness. Was the automation topic about automating the T-compiler weekly meeting? Or the pre-traige process for that meeting? Or for some other meeting?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:43, on Zulip):

have already added myself to define areas of the compiler

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 06 2020 at 19:44, on Zulip):

We can probably do both at the same time?

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:44, on Zulip):

triage meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:44, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

sorry for my tardiness. Was the automation topic about automating the T-compiler weekly meeting? Or the pre-traige process for that meeting? Or for some other meeting?

I was mainly thinking about pre-triage but after one is done, would be trivial to do the other one

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:44, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

Santiago Pastorino said:

Automate our meeting

so the idea briefly is to automate our meeting that we are not having anymore because we are moving to async ?

This confused me

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:44, on Zulip):

Thus my question

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

Santiago Pastorino said:

Santiago Pastorino said:

Automate our meeting

so the idea briefly is to automate our meeting that we are not having anymore because we are moving to async ?

This confused me

yeah, I was implicitly talking about pre-triage

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

(because we aren't getting rid of the T-compiler weekly meeting.)

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

Okay, thanks.

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

we will still have both meetings

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

and we want to move the ... hehe yeah yeah, we want kind of get rid of this looong pre-triage meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

it currently takes 2hs

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

see it sounds like not everyone agrees about what "get rid of" / "still have" means...

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:45, on Zulip):

we could do the prioritization separated and then have 1h meeting or 30 minutes meeting

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:46, on Zulip):

Though I assume the real point is that we do not want a meeting that is both synchronous and >=2 hours long.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:46, on Zulip):

yeah, so the idea is from the pre-triage meeting (2hs long), move the review of each issue, prioritization and all that out of it

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

Maybe I should state up front: I never meant for the pre-triage to be a synchronous meeting.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

yeah, so the idea is from the pre-triage meeting (2hs long), move the review of each issue, prioritization and all that out of it

and do this async

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

it was just meant to be a public record of the pre-triage process that I was doing, where I was inviting feedback

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

yeah totally

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

so we can keep doing that but async

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

each issue on a separate topic

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

but didn't require/expect people to participate terribly much or even attend.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:47, on Zulip):

:+1:

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:48, on Zulip):

so ... just in case ... to summarize this a bit ...

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:49, on Zulip):

what we will be trying to move to async is the review of different issues that we need to prioritize, assign and ping ice breakers

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:49, on Zulip):

that's the most time consuming part of the meeting

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:49, on Zulip):

if we can move more stuff async and everyone is happy with that it's also possible

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:49, on Zulip):

spawning off to separate topics is a really good idea

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:49, on Zulip):

but what I was saying is that at some point, in a synced way, we need to go over all our process anyway

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:49, on Zulip):

(I think/hope)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:49, on Zulip):

and that will take possible 30 mins or 1h

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:50, on Zulip):

we have 10 more minutes

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:50, on Zulip):

let's try to split some of the work

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:50, on Zulip):

I've already added myself to the Define areas of the compiler task

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:51, on Zulip):

actually

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:51, on Zulip):

all we have is

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:51, on Zulip):
LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 06 2020 at 19:51, on Zulip):

I have already started to think about the "Automate our meeting" point, so you can assign it to me if needed

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:51, on Zulip):

splitting of the labels is done, just assigning issues to I-Prioritize is left which can be done during the pre-triage meeting this week

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:52, on Zulip):

I think the running intention for P-critical bug is "release blocker." I suspect we need more detail than that, but that does raise a question: Should the release team be involved in that definition? I guess its not strictly necessary to loop them in, but they may have interesting feedback...

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:52, on Zulip):

DPC said:

splitting of the labels is done, just assigning issues to I-Prioritize is left which can be done during the pre-triage meeting this week

cool, I think one of the time consuming things about this is communicating

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:52, on Zulip):

I can shape a bit better the tasks if people want

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 19:53, on Zulip):

@LeSeulArtichaut I'd like to be a fly-on-the-wall for the automation development. In particular, as someone who has had to run the meeting for a long time, I might be a good source of "user stories", so to speak.

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:53, on Zulip):

yeah, I can help with this too :)

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur (Apr 06 2020 at 19:54, on Zulip):

I'd like to help, by picking a small task that doesn't require too much knowledge of current processes, but I'm having a hard time to find one. Let me know if there's something you think I can help with.

LeSeulArtichaut (Apr 06 2020 at 19:54, on Zulip):

pnkfelix said:

LeSeulArtichaut I'd like to be a fly-on-the-wall for the automation development. In particular, as someone who has had to run the meeting for a long time, I might be a good source of "user stories", so to speak.

I had no intentions of doing it alone, don't worry :big_smile:
Yes, I'll definitely reach you out, I just lacked the time to really do anything these days...

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:54, on Zulip):

@o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur you said you wanted to document something but I don't remember what was it

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur (Apr 06 2020 at 19:55, on Zulip):

but we can move the most time consuming parts of that meeting which are reviewing issues, prioritizing, assigning those, pinging ice breakers, etc

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:55, on Zulip):

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur said:

I'd like to help, by picking a small task that doesn't require too much knowledge of current processes, but I'm having a hard time to find one. Let me know if there's something you think I can help with.

so ... maybe you want to document the priority labels thing?

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur (Apr 06 2020 at 19:55, on Zulip):

sure I'd love to :)

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:55, on Zulip):

what's left in the first point (to design and document)

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:55, on Zulip):

o0Ignition0o - Jeremy Lempereur said:

sure I'd love to :)

I can help you

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:56, on Zulip):

DPC said:

what's left in the first point (to design and document)

didn't get your question

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:56, on Zulip):

we are running out of time, I guess does someone else want to take some of this tasks :)

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:56, on Zulip):

Define and document: What is a “critical” bug?

we have a list already in the Ideas document you shared :slight_smile:

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:56, on Zulip):

yes

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:56, on Zulip):

there are a lot of ideas around

DPC (Apr 06 2020 at 19:57, on Zulip):

i can take care of the nominated label split

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:58, on Zulip):

DPC said:

i can take care of the nominated label split

cool!

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:58, on Zulip):

ok most stuff is assigned

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:59, on Zulip):

the only unassigned is Can we do our process async? what do we need?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:59, on Zulip):

but I'm not sure if we need to assign this one, I'd need to review a couple of things

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:59, on Zulip):

anyway in any case I'll do what's need

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:59, on Zulip):

ok I'm going to go over this document again and clarify a bit what do we need to do

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 19:59, on Zulip):

then let everyone know here

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 20:00, on Zulip):

I guess this is all

pnkfelix (Apr 06 2020 at 20:00, on Zulip):

thanks @Santiago Pastorino

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 20:00, on Zulip):

unless someone else have something to say or add?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 06 2020 at 20:01, on Zulip):

:wave: then!

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:30, on Zulip):

I'm going over this meeting again to tidy up our plan

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:30, on Zulip):

one thing I've noticed though

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:30, on Zulip):

image.png

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:31, on Zulip):

just fixed this, I-nominated was still indicating prioritization

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:31, on Zulip):

now I think this is more proper

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:31, on Zulip):

we need to communicate and adjust our procedure

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:31, on Zulip):

during today's procedure we didn't include I-prioritize stuff but there's one issue already tagged with it

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:46, on Zulip):

now that we have I-prioritize and I-nominated let's agree on something

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:46, on Zulip):

for instance, regressions ...

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:46, on Zulip):

I think there are two cases

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:47, on Zulip):

regressions in general needs to be assigned and prioritized, those should be tagged with I-prioritize

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:47, on Zulip):

cc @pnkfelix @DPC

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:50, on Zulip):

for backports we use beta-nominated and stable-nominated so no issue with those

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 20:50, on Zulip):

I don't think there's any issue with this, anyway checking :)

pnkfelix (Apr 08 2020 at 20:54, on Zulip):

Santiago Pastorino said:

regressions in general needs to be assigned and prioritized, those should be tagged with I-prioritize

Indeed, this seems like something that even a bot could do, right?

Santiago Pastorino (Apr 08 2020 at 21:08, on Zulip):

yes

Last update: Jun 05 2020 at 23:15UTC