IMO each one of these could warrant a working group: TP TO TR TM TS Grove ATS automation/ci/cd (does cdn-in-a-box fall in this category?) documentation (or maybe this falls under each component)
Even though you could argue that some working groups might not be very active, I don't really see the harm in having them. On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 4:53 PM Rawlin Peters <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm late to the party on this one, but +1 on the working groups idea. > > -1 on email lists per component. I don't really think there are enough > "single-component" email threads that would warrant each component > having their own mailing list. Those discussions can be had in the > component's respective slack channel, if they really need to be > separate, then taken to the mailing list with the results. > > - Rawlin > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:29 AM David Neuman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Sounds great, I will reach out to all three of you and we can get the > ball > > rolling. > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 6:58 AM Hoppal, Michael < > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > I would love to start one for Traffic Ops. > > > > > > Michael > > > > > > On 11/13/19, 3:26 PM, "Gray, Jonathan" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I'd volunteer for one on > install/upgrade/lab.infra/automation/ci/cd. > > > > > > Jonathan G > > > > > > > > > On 11/13/19, 3:07 PM, "Jeremy Mitchell" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > I'll bite. I'd like to start one for TP. > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:50 PM David Neuman < > > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > @Robert Butts <[email protected]>, there is a > process to > > > create > > > > more > > > > mailing lists, Phil helped me do it to create summits@ > > > > > > > > If someone is interested in starting our first working > group, I > > > will be > > > > happy to help. > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:23 PM Robert O Butts < > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 on Working Groups, the IETF also works by consensus, and > > > WGs work very > > > > > well there. > > > > > > > > > > They're particularly good for letting people subscribe to > > > things they > > > > care > > > > > about, while ignoring things they don't. It'd be ideal if > > > Apache will let > > > > > us make arbitrary mailing lists. Not sure if that's > possible? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 2:18 PM Hoppal, Michael < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Agreed with Jeremy I would be +1 on both ideas. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11/13/19, 2:07 PM, "ocket 8888" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > well, I actually like Dave's suggestion better than > my > > > own > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jeremy Mitchell < > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I like both of those ideas. Either a working group > and > > > someone > > > > > > volunteers > > > > > > > to setup/lead the working group (ideally a > committer > > > or pmc > > > > member) > > > > > > or an > > > > > > > RM at the component level to help manage issues, > > > milestones, > > > > > > roadmaps, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 12:27 PM Dave Neuman < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with Rob and Jonathan on this one. I > don't > > > see a > > > > reason > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > committers cannot already gravitate toward a > > > component, and I > > > > > want > > > > > > to > > > > > > > avoid > > > > > > > > adding any formal designation to community > members > > > outside of > > > > the > > > > > > defined > > > > > > > > Apache ones (contributor, commiter, and pmc). > > > > > > > > I think I would rather see us head in the > direction > > > of working > > > > > > groups. > > > > > > > We > > > > > > > > can define working groups for each component > > > (although I really > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > think > > > > > > > > each component needs one) that is open to anyone. > > > The working > > > > > > group can > > > > > > > > meet on a consistent interval and can use that > time > > > to complete > > > > > the > > > > > > > > managerial tasks outlined above as well as > discuss > > > open PRs, > > > > have > > > > > > design > > > > > > > > conversations, etc. Of course, any decision > made in > > > the > > > > working > > > > > > group > > > > > > > > meeting would then need to be brought back to the > > > list. > > > > Ideally > > > > > > we would > > > > > > > > have a PMC member that takes the initiative to > setup > > > the > > > > working > > > > > > group, > > > > > > > but > > > > > > > > I don't see that as a hard requirement. I am > happy > > > to help > > > > > anyone > > > > > > who is > > > > > > > > interested get a working group setup. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 11:24 AM < > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 10:57 -0700, Jeremy > Mitchell > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Maybe component lead is not the right term? > > > > > > > > > >> ... hold the position for a defined amount > of > > > time ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since most of the responsibilities seem tied to > > > releases, > > > > maybe > > > > > > we just > > > > > > > > > need sub-release-managers for the components? > The > > > main RM can > > > > > > also fill > > > > > > > > > one of those positions as well as "main RM". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
