We have to leave some of this flexibility in the hands of the release manager. I agree the community should have a first go at the unassigned tickets, while some tickets are picked up quickly others are around for a while. As a release manager it is the responsibility bestowed in that person that the release is made on time and with quality. So I think it is perfectly fine for the people responsible for a release to triage a blocker in case it is blocking the work of some of the community member and there is an urgency to get it fixed. Same goes for the blockers and criticals that remain on Jira for some time.
I will not though differentiate between community members as all of the members who contribute are passionate about it and have time to contribute. -abhi On 10/04/13 12:05 AM, "Noah Slater" <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >Got it. Thanks! :) > > >On 9 April 2013 19:29, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> > When you say it's understandable that people being paid to work on >> > CloudStack full time engage in cookie licking, do you mean to say you >> think >> > it is acceptable? >> >> >> Hell NO, understandable == I understand how people work in the companies >> who pay them to work on ACS. >> But understandable != acceptable. >> >> >> > Or do you believe we should be working to prevent it? >> > >> >> Yes! That's what I'm saying: we should be working to prevent it. A way I >> suggested is to inculcate the habit among ourselves (all contributors) >>and >> promote the culture within ACS community to take initiatives and to >>assign >> the tickets themselves. >> >> No one should assign tickets to others unless a person has jira ACL >>issues >> and has explicitly asked for same on public ML to someone/anyone. >> >> Cheers. >> >> >> > >> > >> > On 9 April 2013 19:14, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Prasanna Santhanam <t...@apache.org> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 01:32:58PM -0700, Animesh Chaturvedi >>wrote: >> > > > > [Animesh>] Folks I wanted to get your opinion on auto-assignment >> > > > > based on the component maintainers list. We can also create >>shared >> > > > > issues filters based on components. Folks can subscribe to the >> > > > > filters of interest and receive daily email notification. >> > > > >> > > > I have no opinion and am okay whichever way - >>auto-assign/unassigned. >> > > > But these workflows should be _*clearly*_ mentioned to >>contributors >> > > > and where they will go looking for them - wiki, website etc. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > A non-sponsored new/old (casual/hippie) contributor would try to >>search >> > > among unassigned issues, while managers/developers/committers whose >> > $dayjob >> > > allows them to work on ACS fulltime will tend to do 'cookie lickin' >> which >> > > is understandable and will assure that someone gets the privilege to >> work >> > > on it and their employers will make sure the task would be done :) >> > > >> > > I would prefer an environment where every contributor (sponsored or >> > > otherwise) would assign the tickets themselves, and unassign if they >> > cannot >> > > do it or don't have time/resources for it. >> > > >> > > We've already seen several occasions where someone assigns an issue >>to >> > > someone and we see cycle of assignments because the "assigner" had >>no >> > clue >> > > about the issue or did not really know who would could really >>resolve >> the >> > > issue. Just saying. >> > > >> > > Cheers. >> > > >> > > Triaging and assigning issues at the time of release to >> > > > contributors/committers by the Release Manager shouldn't be a >>problem >> > > > at all as long as it's communicated (as Chip did for the RC bugs) >> > > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Prasanna., >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > NS >> > >> > > > >-- >NS
