On Thu, 2020-04-02 at 21:58 +0200, Clement Verna wrote: [evolution is still crashing. sigh. such is life. apologies for formatting, again] > > So yeah, let's discount the releng folks first, because releng has > > existed all along, and - as I said - my original statement was not about > > "people who are organizationally in the same team as the people who work > > on Fedora app stuff" but "people who work on Fedora app stuff". So that > > lets out Mohan and Tomas. > > > > I don't think this is fair at all, Tomas and Mohan are doing a lot of > development and trying to improve a lot of the tooling around releng so > that we move from a manual heavy process to a more automated or at least > tool assisted process. If you consider that releng tooling is not > application work, then please explain to me what is bodhi, > release-monitoring, anitya, mdapi etc ... It seems to me that these > services are 100% release engineering focused. I think we've more or less beaten this list thing to death and maybe we don't actually disagree at all (can we say it actually turns out to be more or less a wash and move on? I am at this point willing to concede that my impression that the headcount was *higher* before was mistaken), but I didn't mean "discount them" in the sense of "discount their contributions", I meant "discount them from the comparison", because I didn't include the people working in releng two years ago in the "before" list. We could add the current releng people to the "now" list and the previous releng people to the "before" list, but what would be the point, beyond beating this dead horse even harder? :) > Here's Vipul's lists: > > https://github.com/siddharthvipul > > https://pagure.io/user/siddharthvipul1 > > > > he seems to work exclusively on CentOS CI. Okay, Fedora *uses* CentOS > > CI, but presumably back in the 2018 timeframe, someone (whether that's > > Vipul or someone else) was working on CentOS CI who wasn't included in > > my list, because I only listed people working on Fedora stuff. So this > > still seems like a wash. > > > > Vipul and I have done extensive work to add the OSBS aarch64 cluster in > staging, and it might comes as a surprise but yes we are working as a team > and even sometimes pair programing and sharing knowledge. But you will find > some of Vipul's contribution on the ansible repo git logs. Also this work > is directly coming as a request from the council to support the IOT > objective, so I think it is fair to count it as "development" work even if > this was mostly operation work and deploying a new OpenShift cluster for > OSBS, since this time could have been spend on other application if that > was asked by the council. Same point: I wasn't meaning to dismiss anyone's contributions, only to try and keep the *comparison* valid, so it's not valid to include "people working on CentOS CI" in the 'now' list (as they're now accounted as part of 'CPE') but not include people who were working on CentOS CI in the "then" list (because they weren't part of 'Fedora infra'). But please let's just leave this point now? :) > Yeah we are even, and we have 2 new persons joining the team next week with > a more sysadmin/operation profile because we really need to support nirik > and smooge in that area. I think what you are failing to see is that for > roughly the same team, there is much more thing to do. The project keeps > adding new things, we now have containers, flatpaks, IoT, silverblue, > CoreOS and this is good thing but it adds more work on the team for example > the releng work that was needed 5 years ago has now triple, same thing on > the infra side. On the application development, tools and application have > to be adapted to take care of these new deliverables. I am pretty sure you > know this very well because that must impact you also on the QA side. Yeah, you're right, so I'm certainly not "failing to see" that. But I think we may have lost track of where this discussion got started. Let me quote myself from right back at the start: "At the very least, if we have somehow reached a point where Red Hat is no longer willing to provide sufficient resources to run Fedora on the lines the Fedora community wants it to be run, we need to recognize that this is a significant problem that needs to be properly aired and discussed and resolved. In this context I'll note that the apparent significant headcount reduction of RH people working on Fedora infrastructure over the last few years is in itself a worrying trend, particularly if you consider it while reading Clement's email." *that's* where this whole "headcount" subthread kicked off. As I mentioned above, I'm now willing to admit that my impression that there was an "apparent significant headcount reduction" was off the mark, but to me it seems that in saying "for roughly the same team, there is much more thing to do", you're *supporting* my initial point here, if anything, right? > > To be really clear: I don't want the takeaway from this to be "Adam is > > very mad and doesn't want CPE to be allowed to work on cool new projects > > any more". I like cool new projects! Cool new projects are great! I > > write them myself sometimes! I'm just having trouble joining up the dots > > here in terms of high-level strategy. > > > > We are really starting with prioritization and trying to be better at how > we organize our work, so yeah maybe not every is great, but I did not know > that perfection was the minimum required. Sheesh, I thought everyone knew that perfection is the baseline for anything where LWN and Phoronix might be reading ;) > We also share a weekly status > update of every that is going on and welcome feedback and comments. Also if > you think that we are really on the wrong tracks please feel free to reach > out to the council or directly to Aoife which is working really hard to try > to make sense of all the requests and needs that arrives at our door. I certainly don't mean to give that impression. I meant what I said: I'm having trouble trying to reconcile the various different statements about resource prioritization from Smooge and Randy and yourself and Leigh with the whole forge decision process, and I'm struggling to make sense of it. In my head it is adding up to something like "we absolutely don't have anything like the resources to maintain all the legacy stuff (including Pagure) let alone take on new stuff BUT continuing to maintain and host Pagure was absolutely a valid option and one we needed to go through a lengthy decision process to discount BUT "24/7 availability in an SLA model and not hosted by the CPE team" was a top level requirement BUT we do have the resources to work on *this* new thing..." I'm not saying it *definitely doesn't* add up. I'm not in a position to make that assertion and I wouldn't presume to. I'm just saying I haven't yet found it all laid out somewhere where I can see how it adds up. That's why I phrased it as "I'm having trouble joining up the dots". > I think it is important to note that a lot of people in the team are quite > new to being part of a community. Honestly I don't think we are giving them > a really good experience. But what strike me the most is the little trust > there is in our team. When a group of people is working as hard as the > folks in the CPE team, (some being around during the weekends or waking up > in the middle of the night to restart a service) is telling that they > cannot sustain the amount of work they have, there is so little trust in > that team that we have to go and check the commit logs of these people to > see on what they are working and if this time is well invested. > > Honestly I have no words, and no motivation to go and fix any of the > tickets that are waiting to be fixed. To be absolutely 100% clear on this: I am absolutely not trying to dunk on the CPE team here. I deeply appreciate all the work you folks in the trenches do. I am trying very hard not to denigrate any specific *people* here, because it's against the CoC and I don't like doing it anyway: as I've always tried to say in discussions like this, I absolutely believe good people with good intentions sometimes don't do things as well as they could have been done, and I absolutely include myself in that group, and I hope I'm always open to the same kind of feedback on my decisions (as opposed to me personally) from others. But the thing I am asking questions about here is the *decision making process* and the *strategic vision*, which if I have to pin it down is clearly a responsibility of management. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-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/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
