- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:28:03 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Adopt triage Service-Level Objectives (SLOs)`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLUTION: adopt this triaging tool` * `RESOLVED: Adopt triage Service-Level Objectives (SLOs)` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <Frances> Jeffrey: system in place to look at every issue when it comes in and take to deal with or if it is an open ended issue and force the deadlines if we miss them<br> <Frances> Jeffrey: would like feedback on changes to the design from the working group, add to Elik'a suggestion to phrase them in terms of GitHub labels and an automated system. Everything in discussion looks implementable.<br> <chrishtr> I'm a big fan of this, it will help us avoid accidental mistakes<br> <Frances> Alan: Sounds great, we can try a few things out. Some might be useful, some might not.<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to ask about F2F? and to<br> <florian> q+<br> <jyasskin> q+ to extra agenda+ labels<br> <Frances> fantasai: previously had agenda+ in a previous upcoming agenda. Need prioritization especially with 50+ items. Possible agenda+ urgent. Could be a good change to the labels.<br> <Frances> fantasai: prioritization is not obvious currently<br> <fantasai> s/had agenda/had only agenda/<br> <fantasai> s/prioritization/Wrt prioritizing all issues, priortization/<br> <Frances> jeffrey: extra agenda+ labels, have a system the other working groups can adopt, consistent meaning across working groups. Endorse agenda+ later or low priority.<br> <fantasai> s/is not obvious/is not always obvious/<br> <jyasskin> q-<br> <Frances> Jeffrey: Expect that the default label does not have a deadline and default of no deadline<br> <astearns> ack florian<br> <Frances> Florian: agenda+ may mean we have discussed synchronously enough, put it in the call. Or possibly that we need to ship now. ready for a decision vs we need a decision now.<br> <fantasai> s/synchronously/asynchronously/<br> <fantasai> s/ship now/ship, need a decision now/<br> <Frances> Florian: Has to be different than a company such as in x weeks. Need to give enough room from some that are late. Focusing on triage is more important.<br> <Frances> Jeffrey: Can't assign work, this is volunteer. Labels are under the control of the working group, companies can't assign labels.<br> <Frances> Jeffrey: Create a blocksshipping label for a higher priority label.<br> <astearns> ack fantasai<br> <Frances> fantasai: Rather than blocks shipping, possibly urgent instead.<br> <Frances> jeffrey: There is already an urgent label. agenda+ and urgent labels are reasonable set of labels<br> <fantasai> s/instead./instead, since things can be urgent for different reasons, not only blocking shipping/<br> <Frances> Alan: Other comments?<br> <Frances> Jeffrey: Adopt labels and label things. Label everything with priority eventually label and label them as they are triaged.<br> <Frances> fantasai: Something can be urgent but not important and vice versa. One axis.<br> <florian> q+<br> <fantasai> S/One axis/Two axes. But I think you want one axis/<br> <astearns> ack florian<br> <Frances> Jeffrey: Something better than numbers, can possibly go by numbers.<br> <fantasai> s/Something/Want to something/<br> <Frances> Florian: If something is urgent, need it soon. Might not be important, need to answer it quickly.<br> <chrishtr> q+<br> <fantasai> s/important/urgent to everybody, but is important to at least one person in the WG/<br> <Frances> jeffrey: Might make sense to use eventually label.<br> <astearns> ack chrishtr<br> <Frances> fantasai: Agree, makes sense<br> <Frances> Chris: urgent and important are names for p0 and p1. urgent means it needs to happen soon. It is on the same axis.<br> <Frances> Chris H: concept of soon, concept of right away, and pick names.<br> <Frances> Jeffrey: Possibly rename priorities to soon, eventually, and right now<br> <schenney> ?<br> <schenney> q+<br> <jyasskin> q+ to say that Google's practice isn't gospel<br> <Frances> chris H: asap one is used sparingly, could cause a compat risk. Need to possibly indicate when getting done soon. Vs eventually does not need to get done as soon.<br> <astearns> ack schenney<br> <fantasai> s/makes sense/makes sense. But importance is a different axis, so if need a level between Urgent and Eventually that means Soon, just call it Soon?<br> <Frances> florian: plenty information to triage things accordingly.<br> <bradk> “Eventually” means could be years?<br> <jyasskin> bradk: Yes.<br> <Frances> fantasai: Soon could be good, if we have a context for the discussion. Not so many issues for agenda+, outside of agenda+ in issues and triage, editor needs to handle things as separate. Priority just sits on issues outside of it.<br> <fantasai> s/bradk:/bradk,<br> <astearns> ack jyasskin<br> <Zakim> jyasskin, you wanted to say that Google's practice isn't gospel<br> <Frances> jeffrey: Could use agenda+ instead of soon.<br> <schenney> Sorry, there are two distinct concerns in my mind. One is "what do we do now" and one is "how do we have data to inform future decisions". We need to consider the latter even if we don't act on the data.<br> <fantasai> s/Soon could be good, if we have a context for the discussion/For all Agenda+, handling soon is good, because otherwise lose context and discussion is weak/<br> <fantasai> s/Not so many issues/Should not have so many issues/<br> <Frances> alan: any objections?<br> <fantasai> s/, outside/. Outside/<br> <fantasai> s/issues outside of it/issues outside Agenda+ also, would be expected to affect triage I suppose<br> <astearns> RESOLUTION: adopt this triaging tool<br> <Frances> PROPOSAL: Adopt triage Service-Level Objectives (SLOs)<br> <Frances> RESOLVED: Adopt triage Service-Level Objectives (SLOs)<br> <Frances> Github-bot take up https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9850<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9820#issuecomment-1919573310 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2024 17:28:06 UTC