Yea, this was what I mean by my question "What is the action when an SLO is missed?"
For example, the way we implement could just be a line in the contribution guide like this: "We aspire to respond quickly to all pull requests, even if it can take some time to review them. If you have not heard a response in <duration> then please @mention someone again, try someone else, or reach out on Slack or dev@." It does sound a bit overly technical to say we have an SLO of <duration> with an SLA that you should ask again. Kenn On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 7:16 AM Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Agree. > > Having a best effort is fine but not a strong commitment, because, like > in any Apache project, lot of people works on the project in their spare > time, or even during business time, with lower priority. > > Regards > JB > > On 07/06/2018 16:11, Thomas Weise wrote: > > I like the idea of speeding up code review and promptly responding to > > PRs, since this is more motivating to the contributors, especially those > > that are not committers. > > > > However, the notion of SLO or target response time is something that > > works within a company with dedicated resources. It may not be the right > > approach for a diverse community with contributors of various > > backgrounds and time commitments. Establishing such policy as > > expectation at the project level seems problematic. > > > > Perhaps this can be a guideline or recommendation, but I don't see how > > it can be measured or enforced at the project level. > > > > Thanks, > > Thomas > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 6:09 AM, Etienne Chauchot <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Yes, I agree with that, I thought it was the delay to start the > review. > > +1 then on the delay to answer > > > > Etienne > > > > Le jeudi 07 juin 2018 à 11:02 +0100, Reuven Lax a écrit : > >> However I think it's reasonable to expect a response within 3 > >> days, even if that response is not an actual review. For instance, > >> the response could be "I'm extremely busy right now, and it will > >> take another week for me to get to this." > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018, 10:40 AM Etienne Chauchot > >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>> +1 on the purpose, but I think 3 business days for proposal 1 are > >>> over-optimistic. > >>> As an example I saw PRs taking weeks before the review started. > >>> IMHO, I think you should consider raising up the 3 days bar a bit. > >>> > >>> Best > >>> Etienne > >>> > >>> Le mardi 05 juin 2018 à 15:04 -0700, Andrew Pilloud a écrit : > >>>> The one thing that seems a little odd to me is using business > >>>> days. The beam community spans across company and country > >>>> boundaries, which makes business days a slightly ambiguous > >>>> concept. Not everyone's holidays and weekends line up. I also > >>>> agree with Alan, we need to build in time to disconnect. If this > >>>> is opt-in, it might make sense to collect working hours and make > >>>> it easy to opt out if you aren't going to be available for an > >>>> extended period. Until recently we had a page listing committer > >>>> companies and time zones. Bringing that back would be a good > option. > >>>> > >>>> Andrew > >>>> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:29 PM Huygaa Batsaikhan > >>>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > >>>>> Thanks Ken for pointing out that vote is a two step process. I > >>>>> will write an extended written doc about pros and cons of the > >>>>> SLO and any related topics. In the meantime, feel free to use > >>>>> this thread to express any suggestions and concerns. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, Huygaa > > > > > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com >
