On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 22:33, Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> 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? > Yes, indeed I see your point and this whole thread made me realize that maybe we have not been good enough at communicating that we need help. I mean one way to see it, is that Red Hat should be investing more in the team but another way is that we are failing to get more support from within our community. As Neal and Smooge mentioned it is difficult to contribute and help in the infra and releng activities, it is not impossible but there is a very high entry fee to pay which is to understand how all the tools and services interact together + the history of why this was done that way. In the same time, I honestly think the team does a good job at being transparent and welcoming to people willing to help, we have weekly and daily "standup" style meetings on IRC (infra and releng), we have started to do backlog prioritization on the infra list. We have also tried in the past to have office hours or apprentice day to help people make some contribution. Unfortunately the reality is that we don't have much participation to these initiatives. I am very happy to think that we are doing something wrong, and if anyone has ideas on how we could improve or make it easier to contribute to infra and releng please reach out. > > > > 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. > Yeah I know you meant well and were trying to prove your point. I just felt it was important to remind that these are great people, dedicated and doing a lot of work for the good of Fedora and CentOS. > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > 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@lists.fedoraproject.org >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org
