Hi, RE #1, does this mean if you submit a ticket and you are not a contributor you can't modify any of the fields including description or adding/removing attachments?
RE #2, while bugs don't necessarily have a priority it's helpful to have it sort logically with other issue types on that field. Seems like ideally what we want to preserve is a useful sort order without having to populate the field manually. RE #4, Do we need to keep wish at all? Not voting yet just because I'm not sure on some. Ariel On Mon, Dec 10, 2018, at 7:43 AM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > New questions. This is the last round, before I call a proper vote on > the modified proposal (so we can take a mandate to Infra to modify our > JIRA workflows). > > Thanks again to everyone following and contributing to this discussion. > I’m not sure any of these remaining questions are critical, but for the > best democratic outcome it’s probably worth running them through the > same process. I also forgot to include (1) on the prior vote. > > 1. Limit edits to JIRA ‘contributor’ role: +1/-1 > 2. Priority on Bug issue type: (A) remove it; (B) auto-populate it; (C) > leave it. Please rank. > 3. Top priority: (A) Urgent; (B) Blocker. See here for my explanation > of why I chose Urgent > <https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/c7b95b827d8da4efc5c017df80029676a032b150ec00bf11ca9c7fa7@%3Cdev.cassandra.apache.org%3E>. > 4. Priority keep ‘Wish’ (to replace issue type): +1/-1 > > For 2, if we cannot remove it, we can make it non-editable and default > to Normal; for auto-populate I propose using Severity (Low->Low, Normal- > >Normal, Critical->Urgent). No guarantees entirely on what we can > achieve, so a ranked choice would be ideal. > > I have avoided splitting out another vote on the Platform field, since > everyone was largely meh on the question of mandatoriness; it won by > only a slim margin, because everyone was +/- 0, and nobody responded to > back Ariel’s dissenting view. > > My votes are: > 1: +1 > 2: B,C,A > 3: A > 4: +0.5 > > > For tracking, the new consensus from the prior vote is: > 1: A (+10) > 2: +9 -0.1 > 3: +10 > 4: +6 -2 (=+4) > 5: +2; a lot of meh. > 6: +9 > > > > > On 7 Dec 2018, at 17:52, Ariel Weisberg <ar...@weisberg.ws> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Late but. > > > > 1. A > > 2. +1 > > 3. +1 > > 4. -1 > > 5. -0 > > 6. +1 > > > > RE 4, I think blocker is an important priority. High and urgent mean the > > same thing to me. Wish is fine, but that is too similar to low if you ask > > me. My ideal would be low, medium, high, blocker. Medium feels weird, but > > it's a real thing, it's not high priority and we really want it done, but > > it's not low enough that we might skip it/not get to it anytime soon. > > > > RE 5. I don't think I have ever used the environment field or used the > > contents populated in it. Doesn't mean someone else hasn't, but in terms of > > making the easy things easy it seems like making it required isn't so high > > value? I don't populate it myself usually I put it in the description or > > the subject without thinking. > > > > It seems like the purpose of a field is to make it indexable and possibly > > structured. How often do we search or require structure on this field? > > > > Ariel > > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018, at 2:12 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith wrote: > >> Ok, so after an initial flurry everyone has lost interest :) > >> > >> I think we should take a quick poll (not a vote), on people’s positions > >> on the questions raised so far. If people could try to take the time to > >> stake a +1/-1, or A/B, for each item, that would be really great. This > >> poll will not be the end of discussions, but will (hopefully) at least > >> draw a line under the current open questions. > >> > >> I will start with some verbiage, then summarise with options for > >> everyone to respond to. You can scroll to the summary immediately if > >> you like. > >> > >> - 1. Component: Multi-select or Cascading-select (i.e. only one > >> component possible per ticket, but neater UX) > >> - 2. Labels: rather than litigate people’s positions, I propose we do > >> the least controversial thing, which is to simply leave labels intact, > >> and only supplement them with the new schema information. We can later > >> revisit if we decide it’s getting messy. > >> - 3. "First review completed; second review ongoing": I don’t think we > >> need to complicate the process; if there are two reviews in flight, the > >> first reviewer can simply comment that they are done when ready, and the > >> second reviewer can move the status once they are done. If the first > >> reviewer wants substantive changes, they can move the status to "Change > >> Request” before the other reviewer completes, if they like. Everyone > >> involved can probably negotiate this fairly well, but we can introduce > >> some specific guidance on how to conduct yourself here in a follow-up. > >> - 4. Priorities: Option A: Wish, Low, Normal, High, Urgent; Option B: > >> Wish, Low, Normal, Urgent > >> - 5. Mandatory Platform and Feature. Make mandatory by introducing new > >> “All” and “None” (respectively) options, so always possible to select an > >> option. > >> - 6. Environment field: Remove? > >> > >> I think this captures everything that has been brought up so far, except > >> for the suggestion to make "Since Version” a “Version” - but that needs > >> more discussion, as I don’t think there’s a clear alternative proposal > >> yet. > >> > >> Summary: > >> > >> 1: Component. (A) Multi-select; (B) Cascading-select > >> 2: Labels: leave alone +1/-1 > >> 3: No workflow changes for first/second review: +1/-1 > >> 4: Priorities: Including High +1/-1 > >> 5: Mandatory Platform and Feature: +1/-1 > >> 6: Remove Environment field: +1/-1 > >> > >> I will begin. > >> > >> 1: A > >> 2: +1 > >> 3: +1 > >> 4: +1 > >> 5: Don’t mind > >> 6: +1 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On 29 Nov 2018, at 22:04, Scott Andreas <sc...@paradoxica.net> wrote: > >>> > >>> If I read Josh’s reply right, I think the suggestion is to periodically > >>> review active labels and promote those that are demonstrably useful to > >>> components (cf. folksonomy -> > >>> taxonomy<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folksonomy#Folksonomy_vs._taxonomy>). > >>> I hadn’t read the reply as indicating that labels should be zero’d out > >>> periodically. In any case, I agree that reviewing active labels and > >>> re-evaluating our taxonomy from time to time sounds great; I don’t think > >>> I’d zero them, though. > >>> > >>> Responding to a few comments: > >>> > >>> ––– > >>> > >>> – To Joey’s question about issues languishing in Triage: I like the idea > >>> of an SLO for the “triage” state. I am happy to commit time and resources > >>> to triaging newly-reported issues, and to JIRA pruning/gardening in > >>> general. I spent part of the weekend before last adding components to a > >>> few hundred open issues and preparing the Confluence reports mentioned in > >>> the other thread. It was calming. We can also figure out how to rotate / > >>> share this responsibility. > >>> > >>> – Labels discussion: If we adopt a more structured component hierarchy to > >>> treat as our primary method of organization, keep labels around for > >>> people to use as they’d like (e.g., for custom JQL queries useful to > >>> their workflows), and periodically promote those that are widely useful, > >>> I think that sounds like a fine outcome. > >>> > >>> – On Sankalp’s question of issue reporter / new contributor burden: I > >>> actually think the pruning of fields on the “new issue form” makes > >>> reporting issues easier and ensures that information we need is captured. > >>> Having the triage step will also provide a nice task queue for screening > >>> bugs, and ensures a contributor’s taken a look + screened appropriately > >>> (rather than support requests immediately being marked “Critical/Blocker” > >>> and assigned a fix version by the reporter). > >>> > >>> – On Sankalp’s question of the non-committer’s workflow during first pass > >>> of review, I think that’s covered here: > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals#JIRAWorkflowProposals-Workflow > >>> > >>> ––– > >>> > >>> I also want to step back and thank Benedict and Kurt for all of their > >>> analysis and information architecture work behind this proposal. > >>> "Workflow and bug tracker hygiene” can be a thankless endeavor; I want to > >>> make sure this one’s not. Thank you both! > >>> > >>> If we’re nearing consensus on “keeping labels, and considering them for > >>> promotion to components periodically,” are there other items we need to > >>> resolve before we generally feel good about the changes? > >>> > >>> – Scott > >>> > >>> > >>> On November 26, 2018 at 3:14:05 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith > >>> (bened...@apache.org<mailto:bened...@apache.org>) wrote: > >>> > >>> Hmm. On re-reading your earlier email, I realise I may have anyway gotten > >>> confused about your suggestion. > >>> > >>> Are you suggesting we periodically clear any new labels, once we have > >>> replacements, and only leave the old ones that exist today and haven’t > >>> been categorised? > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 23:02, Benedict Elliott Smith <bened...@apache.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Do we maintain a list of prior rejects? Revisit any that have increased > >>>> in usage since last? > >>>> > >>>> Probably we’re bike shedding this one thing too closely. I would be > >>>> happy with removing it, periodically cleaning it, or leaving it intact. > >>>> Mining it for schema changes, or telling people to ask. > >>>> > >>>> But I fear it will all begin to go to pot again after this effort wanes, > >>>> and my life has only one JIRA cleanup effort to call upon. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 18:24, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm thinking something like "Every 6 months, we query on labels with > >>>>> count > >>>>>> = 4 and consider promoting those. Anything < that only shows if people > >>>>>> are > >>>>> specifically looking for it." > >>>>> > >>>>> Taking count of occurrence of a label as a proxy for the potential > >>>>> value in > >>>>> promoting it to something hardened isn't without flaws, but it's also > >>>>> not > >>>>> awful IMO. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 12:37 PM Benedict Elliott Smith > >>>>> <bened...@apache.org> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all > >>>>>>> of us > >>>>>>> knowing they're there? =/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It would at least make it easier to triage the ‘new' ones and promote > >>>>>> them. The pain of actually categorising the labels was high, and doing > >>>>>> that every time would mean it never happens (though maybe there are > >>>>>> ways to > >>>>>> work around this). I also think there’s value in shedding noisy data, > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> an active process to promote good hygiene. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> But who said our state of mind isn’t also important :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This isn’t something I’ll fight hard for, though, I can see it’s at > >>>>>> least > >>>>>> partially a preference for cleanliness. Interested to see what others > >>>>>> think. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 17:28, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> An alternative route might be to support labels, and (e.g.) > >>>>>>>> bi-annually > >>>>>>>> promote any useful ones to the schema, and clear the rest? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1 to promoting, probably should case-by-case the clearing (but mostly > >>>>>> just > >>>>>>> clear) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The present labels are much too painful to clean up. I categorised the > >>>>>> top > >>>>>>>> 100 or so, and will migrate them (there’s a CSV embedded in the > >>>>>>>> proposal > >>>>>>>> you can look at). The rest have < 5 occurrences, so I cannot see what > >>>>>>>> value they really provide us. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Is there harm in leaving them in, aside from psychologically to all > >>>>>>> of us > >>>>>>> knowing they're there? =/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I _think_ several of your concerns are addressed by the new Triage > >>>>>>> state. > >>>>>>>> The idea is for users to create a ticket without any field > >>>>>>>> requirements. > >>>>>>>> Contributors should liaise with the user to understand the problem, > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> transition it to Open. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Shit, my bad, totally missed / didn't grok that. That makes a lot more > >>>>>>> sense. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 11:58 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >>>>>> bened...@apache.org> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry, I failed to respond to point (2) in the aggregate email. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I’m not sure it’s worth complicating the flow for this scenario, as > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> ticket can simply return to ‘Patch Available’. But, I’m really unsure > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> the best option here. Does anyone else have any strong opinions / > >>>>>> thoughts? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 26 Nov 2018, at 14:33, Sankalp Kohli <kohlisank...@gmail.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I have following initial comments on the proposal. > >>>>>>>>> 1. Creating a JIRA should have few fields mandatory like platform, > >>>>>>>> version, etc. We want to put less burden on someone creating a ticket > >>>>>> but I > >>>>>>>> feel these are required for opening bugs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> 2. What is the flow when a non committer does the first pass of > >>>>>>>>> review? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2018, at 7:46 PM, Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1) Removal of labels: one of the strengths of the current model is > >>>>>>>>>> flexibility for groupings of concepts to arise from a > >>>>>>>>>> user-perspective > >>>>>>>>>> (lhf, etc). Calcifying the label concepts into components, > >>>>>>>>>> categories, > >>>>>>>> etc. > >>>>>>>>>> is a strict loss of functionality for users to express and > >>>>>>>>>> categorize > >>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>>> concerns with the project. This feels like an over-correction to > >>>>>>>>>> our > >>>>>>>>>> current lack of discipline cleaning up one-off labels. > >>>>>> Counter-proposal: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. We beef up the categories and components as proposed and migrate > >>>>>>>>>> labels to those > >>>>>>>>>> 2. We remove the one-off labels that aren't adding value, > >>>>>>>>>> considering > >>>>>>>>>> aggregating similar labels > >>>>>>>>>> 3. We leave the "labels" field intact, perhaps with a bit of > >>>>>>>>>> guidance > >>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> how to effectively use it > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 2) Required fields on transition: assuming these are required upon > >>>>>>>> *issue > >>>>>>>>>> creation*, that's placing a significant burden on a user that's > >>>>>>>>>> seen > >>>>>>>>>> something and wants to open a ticket about it, but isn't sure if > >>>>>>>>>> it's > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> "Semantic Failure" or a "Consistency Failure", for instance. If > >>>>>>>>>> this > >>>>>> is, > >>>>>>>>>> instead, a field required for transition to other ticket states by > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> developer working on it, I think that makes sense. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 3) Priority Changes: to be blunt, this looks like shuffling chairs > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> deck of the titanic on this one - in my experience, most users > >>>>>>>>>> aren't > >>>>>>>> going > >>>>>>>>>> to set the priority on tickets when they open them (hence default > >>>>>>>>>> == > >>>>>>>> major > >>>>>>>>>> and most tickets are opened as major), so this is something that > >>>>>>>>>> will > >>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>> either a) left alone so as not to offend those for whom the > >>>>>>>>>> priority > >>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> *actually* major or consistent with the default, or b) changed by > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> dev > >>>>>>>>>> anyway and the added signal from a new "High vs. Urgent" > >>>>>>>>>> distinction > >>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> communication of developer intent to engage with a ticket is > >>>>>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>>> that'll be lost on most users that are just reporting something. I > >>>>>> don't > >>>>>>>>>> have a meaningful counter-proposal at this point as the current > >>>>>> problem > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>> more about UX on this field than the signal / noise on the field > >>>>>> itself > >>>>>>>> IMO. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> A meta question about the "What and Why" of what we're trying to > >>>>>>>> accomplish > >>>>>>>>>> here: it sounds like what you're looking at is: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. to capture more information > >>>>>>>>>> 2. simplify the data entry > >>>>>>>>>> 3. nudge people towards more complete and accurate data entry > >>>>>>>>>> 4. our ability as a project to measure release quality over time > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> identify when Cassandra is ready for (or due a) release. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> The proposal in its current form makes certain strong inroads in > >>>>>>>>>> all > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> those 4 metrics, but I think the major thing missing is the UX of > >>>>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>> we're thinking about changing: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> 1. Making it easy for / reduce friction for users to report bugs > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> requests into the project JIRA (easy to do things right, hard to do > >>>>>>>> things > >>>>>>>>>> wrong) (current proposal is a +1 on "do things right", though I'd > >>>>>> argue > >>>>>>>>>> against it being *easy*) > >>>>>>>>>> 2. Asking from the users what they can provide about their > >>>>>>>>>> experience > >>>>>>>>>> and issues and no more > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Philosophically, are we trying to make it easier for people that > >>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>> paid > >>>>>>>>>> FT to work on C*, are we trying to make things easier for *users* > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>> C*, > >>>>>>>>>> both, neither? Who are we targeting here w/these project changes > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> what > >>>>>>>>>> of their issues / problems are we trying to improve? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> And lastly: the TLC and management of the JIRA aspects of this > >>>>>>>>>> project > >>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> *definitely* languished (not pointing any fingers here, I'm *at > >>>>>>>>>> least* > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>> guilty as anyone on this :) ) - so a big thanks to you and whomever > >>>>>>>> you've > >>>>>>>>>> collaborate with in getting this conversation started! > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 8:39 AM Benedict Elliott Smith < > >>>>>>>> bened...@apache.org> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> We’ve concluded our efforts to produce a proposal for changes to > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> JIRA > >>>>>>>>>>> workflow, and they can be found here: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals > >>>>>>>>>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CASSANDRA/JIRA+Workflow+Proposals > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I hope there will be broad consensus, but I’m sure it won’t be > >>>>>>>>>>> plain > >>>>>>>>>>> sailing. It would be great to get a discussion going around the > >>>>>>>> proposal, > >>>>>>>>>>> so please take some time to read and respond if you think you’ll > >>>>>> have a > >>>>>>>>>>> strong opinion on this topic. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> There remains an undecided question in our initial proposal, that > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> highlighted in the wiki. Specifically, there was no seemingly > >>>>>>>> objective > >>>>>>>>>>> winner for the suggested changes to Component (though I have a > >>>>>>>> preference, > >>>>>>>>>>> that I will express in the ensuing discussion). > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Other contentious issues may be: > >>>>>>>>>>> - The removal of ‘labels’ - which is very noisy, the vast > >>>>>>>>>>> majority of > >>>>>>>>>>> which provide no value, and we expect can be superseded by other > >>>>>>>> suggestions > >>>>>>>>>>> - The introduction of required fields for certain transitions, > >>>>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> which are new (complexity, severity, bug/feature category) > >>>>>>>>>>> - The introduction of some new transitions (Triage, Review in > >>>>>> Progress, > >>>>>>>>>>> Change Requested) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Look forward to hearing your thoughts! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
