Open Stack

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 6:07 AM, Jeremy Stanley <fungi at yuggoth.org> wrote:
> 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
>

Things like tracking project health I see like organizing a trash
pickup at the local park, or off the side of a road: dirty,
unglamorous work. The results can be immediately visible to not only
those doing the work, but passers-by. Eliminating the human factor in
deeply human-driven interactions can have ramifications immediately
noticed.

As distributed as things exist today, reducing the conversation to a
few methods or people can damage intent, without humans talking to
humans in a more direct manner.

Best,
Samuel Cassiba (scas)