Open Stack

Zane Bitter <zbitter at 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