Re: [csswg-drafts] Adopt triage SLOs (#9820)

Yes, the "no triage labels" mark really means "no labels this tool understands", and it isn't exactly that either since I took Tab's suggestion of treating "agenda+" as having a 90-day deadline. The practical effect of that mark is to expand the set of issues that get treated as "triaged": With it, any issue with a non-author reply is "triaged", and without the mark, only issues with a known label count as "triaged". 

I'm also intentionally not giving `/agenda\+.*/` a deadline, since "Agenda+ TPAC" could legitimately be marked that way for most of a year. But I could teach the tool to understand any of your existing labels and give them custom deadlines if y'all want. The countervailing pressures are that 1) it'd be good to align on some common labels that all web groups can share, and 2) my summary dashboard is going to have to simplify the structure to 

I can easily expand the set of "Needs * Feedback" issues that pause the SLOs. Or we could decide that if an issue needs feedback from non-WG folks, and the WG doesn't think it's important enough to actively hound those folks to finish the feedback, then the issue probably shouldn't have a WG-side SLO. Labeling the issue with `Priority: Eventually` (however that gets spelled) will make it not matter whether the SLO is paused. Issues about getting wide review, especially, should not have an SLO from the CSS side. They should ideally be paired with an issue for the wide review group, which does have an SLO.

I also want to make sure we're clear on how many issues should have an SLO/deadline. I'd expect that most issues would _not_ have an SLO, and you'd intentionally mark an issue as urgent or important when the right stakeholders agree to work on it more intensely. Another possible pattern would be for an implementer to mark an issue as urgent/important when they want an answer quickly, but then for the WG as a whole to remove the SLO again if the other implementers aren't willing to focus on that issue quickly. But maybe I'm wrong to expect those patterns! I'd like this call to tell me what patterns to expect.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by jyasskin
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9820#issuecomment-1906757456 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2024 19:15:45 UTC