On 8/20/19 10:18 AM, Clement Verna wrote: > On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 15:30, Dusty Mabe <dusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 8/19/19 6:09 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> >>> Well, this I think is related to our "agile transformation" (or if you >>> prefer "reorganizing how we work"). Right now, you find it hard to get >>> stuff done because everyone is busy on other things, so you have to nag >>> us to get stuff done which makes things worse for us, etc. >> >> Right. It has been this way for a long time. It's not your fault and it's >> not my fault, but both of us feel like we've got the short end of the stick. >> >>> >>> Ideally I think we can get to a place where we do a lot more scheduling >>> and a lot less having to yell for cycles. You note a few things were >>> just 5 min for someone to do... but the way we are working now someone >>> does that thing for you finally, but then goes back to the other stuff >>> they were working on, meaning in 30min you need another thing... repeat. >>> >>> If you can come to us and say "hey, this is my project, I need it >>> deployed by X" we can look at it, gather info we need, put it in our >>> queue and then tell you "hey, we can work on that next tuesday". Then >>> next tuesday we can devote a block of time to getting everything done. I >>> think thats a win for everyone in the end and I would really like to get >>> there. Can we? I sure hope so >> >> >>> >>> In fact perhaps we could start doing this now somewhat: block off say... >>> wed into 2 hour blocks. Sign up people who have projects or pet >>> bugs/issues they want to get solved for those blocks and work on them? >> >> >> I think blocking off time and doing some scheduling is a great idea. My advice >> here is that we have a shared calendar with blocks that people can sign up for >> automatically (i.e. if the block is open anyone can reserve it as long as they >> have a FAS account). >> >> The only counter point that I have is that sometimes a "block of time" isn't >> always what's needed. Sometimes it will be something very small, but rather >> fundamental, that requires quite a bit of rework by the end user. For example, >> you and I have a 5 minutes session where some revelation comes to light and I >> need to go rewrite a portion of my application. I then spend two hours doing >> that and have to wait a week for the next block of time. >> > > I think this is the symptom of a lack of upfront cooperation and > design. This is what we are currently putting in place, if you need > something consequent from us you come up with a spec that explain the > WHAT and the WHY. Then we work together on the HOW and WHEN, once we > have a good idea of the HOW and WHEN the work will be prioritized on > our side (might have a dedicated team assigned to it) which I think > will make cooperation easier. > > It is never too late to start, so maybe we should spend some time to > write down everything that is needed for Fedora CoreOS, write down HOW > this will be done and what the work being Done means. That way we > could probably dedicated a few people to focus on that work until > completion. > > How does that sounds ? We certainly haven't done as good as we could here but we have written down our overall design [1] and had several sessions with core members of releng and infra (mohan, patrick, kevin) to discuss the feasibility of it all. Once we got to a point where we were ready to formally ask for help we have done that in tickets to the infra repo [2-6]: We're definitely not doing the best job here, but we have done some communication. I do want to say that I'm not complaining about the job anyone has done! Just trying to find a better move forward for everyone. Dusty [1] https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/blob/master/stream-tooling.md [2] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7884 [3] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7870 [4] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7821 [5] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/8064 [6] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7997 [7] https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/7719 _______________________________________________ infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/infrastructure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
