Open Stack

On 2018-09-10 06:38:11 -0600 (-0600), Mohammed Naser wrote:
> I think something we should take into consideration is *what* you
> consider health because the way we’ve gone about it over health
> checks is not something that can become a toolkit because it was
> more of question asking, etc
[...]

I was going to follow up with something similar. It's not as if the
TC has a toolkit of any sort at this point to come up with the
information we're assembling in the health tracker either. It's
built up from interviewing PTLs, reading meeting logs, looking at
the changes which merge to teams' various deliverable repositories,
asking around as to whether they've missed important deadlines such
as release milestones (depending on what release models they
follow) or PTL nominations, looking over cycle goals to see how far
along they are, and so on. Extremely time-consuming which is why
it's taken us most of a release cycle and we still haven't finished
a first pass.

Assembling some of this information might be automatable if we make
adjustments to how the data/processes on which it's based are
maintained, but at this point we're not even sure which ones are
problem indicators at all and are just trying to provide the
clearest picture we can. If we come up with a detailed checklist and
some of the checks on that list can be automated in some way, that
seems like a good thing. However, the original data should be
publicly accessible so I don't see why it needs to be members of the
technical committee who write the software to collect that.
-- 
Jeremy Stanley
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180910/fc8465d8/attachment.sig>