Zane Bitter <zbitter@redhat.com> writes:
Is there actually any reason to think that there is a problematic level of under-reporting of TC-escalation-worthy issues? I can't think an a priori reason to expect that in a healthy project there should be large numbers of issues escalated to the TC. And despite focusing our meeting strategy around that and conducting a massively time-consuming campaign of reaching out to teams individually via the health checks, I'm not seeing any empirical evidence of it either. Meanwhile there's ample evidence that we need more time to discuss things as a group - just witness the difficulty of getting through a monthly meeting in < 1 hour by trying to stick to purely procedural stuff.
(A more cynical person than I might suggest that going searching for trivial issues that we can 'solve' by fiat offers a higher dopamine-to-time-spent ratio than working together as a team to do... anything at all, and that this may explain some of its popularity.)
I suggested we start doing the health checks more formally after the 2nd Vancouver summit because during that week we did discover issues that 2 teams had been dealing with for at least a cycle, if not longer. The teams involved never escalated the problems, and the situations had devolved into lingering anger and resentment. In one case we had a project purposefully being misconfigured in CI in a misguided attempt to "force" the team to comply with some policy by making it impossible for them to test a feature. Once we found out about the problems, we had them resolved within the week. So, I don't think it's too much to ask of TC members to actively seek out team leads and try to establish a line of communication to avoid ending up in that situation again. I consider it a preventive measure. -- Doug