On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Rohit Yadav <bhais...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Abhi, > > First of all I totally agree with you on having at least our release > manager the triaging blockers. > > Secondly, we need to understand the issue Noah is trying to raise. The > issue assignment way now is surely an anti-pattern. Let's not deviate from > the real issue Noah started with this thread. > > From what I understand and wanted to convey is that in an opensource > project the development should be done by contributors and forced upon > them. > Err, typo: not forced upon them :) > When someone assigns an issue to me without my consent, I personally see > it as an offence. To say it again, I want to promote culture where everyone > (esp. committers) develops a habit to go through reviewboard, mailing lists > and jira and take their own decisions. > > Prasanna man you're awesome already you don't need to explain your > awesomeness and willingness to be assigned bugs and fix 'em. > People/companies who have their interests in fixing some issue on time is > not an issue here. The problem is couple of anti-patterns, just want to > tell what they are IMO; > > 1. Issue assignment without consent, by few individuals who have taken the > implicit role of managers. Solution: Politely ask them to avoid doing that. > 2. Issue assignment not being taken up by contributors but forced many > times. Solution: Fix habits, inculcate a weekly routine at least. > 3. Push from individuals who allegedly are working for a company and > pursing company's interest on ACS at cost of ruining the Apache culture. If > you're a ACS committer, your decisions should be your own not your > companys'. For example, I would not like to see emails about 4.2 blockers > or push about the same. ACS has yet to release 4.1. > Solution: Pl. don't do it, do whatever you want in your private fork, > leave ACS the opensoure Apache way. > > Maybe I'm missing the some part of the picture here, maybe I'm wrong > "hippie". I embrace change and would like learn and fix my thinkings, > advise? > > Cheers. > > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Abhinandan Prateek < > abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> I see that the term "cookie-licking" is being used frequently in the email >> thread. >> >> We are talking about roughly 200 cookies. 55 of which nobody is willing to >> touch. >> 150 of them are already assigned that means that these are either being >> licked or being eaten. >> >> >> As per the above definition if a release manager assigns a bug to a >> community member who goes and fixes it, it does not count as cookie >> licking. >> >> Cookie licking is when someone sits on a bug and does not act on it, and >> in that prevents another member to pick it up. >> >> *I will say guys instead of worrying about cookie licking pick the cookies >> there are so many around !* >> >> -abhi >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 10/04/13 9:43 AM, "Abhinandan Prateek" <abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com> >> wrote: >> >> >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 >> > >> >> >
