Re: Labels and Milestones on GitHub

On 7 January 2016 at 20:50, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> On 01/07/2016 09:27 AM, Adrian Hope-Bailie wrote:
> > Wide/Horizontal Review and related topics*
>
> Fine by me, but keep in mind that these sorts of horizontal W3C reviews
> typically take months. My concern is that the use of any of those labels
> would kick off a 2-4 month long review process. Some of what we're
> working on needs that, but if we're overzealous with those tags, it'll
> take many times longer to get a set of specs out than our charter allows.
>

Using these labels follows convention and processes that are developing
among all groups using GitHub at W3C.
I agree that these should be used sparingly.


>
> > *Actions*
> >
> > I have also added the "action" label as an experiment.
>
> +1
>
> > *Questions * As mentioned in a previous email, the issue list on our
> > main repo [1] is for discussing high-level issues the majority of
> > which will take the form of design questions such as those already
> > labelled as "question". Any new issues added to hte list that are
> > intended to be "question for the group to get consensus on" should
> > be labelled as "question".
>
> Almost every issue contains a question and the vast majority of our
> important issues will require consensus from the group to merge into a
> spec.
>
>
The default set of labels allow issues to be classified by "type". Question
is one of these and indicates that the issue is intended to initiate a
discussion (as opposed to logging a bug, requesting an enhancement etc).


> I suggest that we have a "call for consensus" tag that can be used when
> a WG member wants the group to resolve a particular issue and has made a
> proposal for doing so.
>

What about a "proposal" label?

If ta question has been debated by the group and someone wants to make a
proposal they should create a new issue, the body of which is their
proposal and which links to the question. They can label it as "proposal"
and assign to one of the chairs. If we think it's ready for CfC we will
assign it to a relevant milestone for consensus and send out appropriate
comms in that regard.


>
> > *Other labels*
> >
> > The default labels should be used to try and organise issues based on
> > their type. i.e. Is this a high-level design question, a bug in one
> > of the tools or documents, a request for an enhancement etc.
>
> Labels should probably be tied to how we want the issue to proceed. For
> example, tagging something as "call for consensus" would signal to the
> chairs that the item needs to go on a weekly call agenda to be resolved.
>
> Tagging something as "flows" would signal to the group that the item is
> currently being discussed in the Flows Task Force and no action is
> needed until the flows task force performs a "call for consensus".
>

+1 if anyone has suggestions about good issue flows let's discuss them here.


>
> > *Milestones* As another experiment I have created a milestone for
> > our 14 January call. The plan is to group any questions we consider
> > ready for resolution on that call under that milestone.
>
> Happy to try this out, but I think having "call for consensus" tags are
> more helpful. Milestones could be something that the chairs use to build
> weekly agendas?
>
> I'd expect Milestones to be used for things like "FPWD",
> "Messaging-WD-1", etc.
>

+1 the intention is for the chairs to use the milestones to group issues
for discussion on a specific call or at a specific f2f


>
> > I propose that the best way for this to happen is for the group to
> > comment that they believe there is either general consensus on the
> > proposal that has been made to resolve the issue or a need to
> > discuss it on the call and then assign the issue to me
> > (@adrianhopebailie).
>
> It's hard to understand if there is "general consensus" if the vast
> majority of the WG participants are not participating in the issue
> tracker (which is the current state we're in).
>

I disagree. Everything that happens on the issue tracker is reflected in
the mailing list and group members are responding both directly to the list
and via the mailing list.

I don't agree that not having had input from every member of the group is
an indictment on the tooling.


>
> One of the best ways to see if there is consensus is to do a call for
> consensus (meaning, propose something and see what people say).
>
> We should fall back to a "call for consensus" tag - anyone may ask for
> it at any time, and if there isn't consensus, the tag is removed and
> it's discussed in the issue tracker again until there is another call
> for consensus (which anyone may ask for).
>

Our proposals are not that different.

I propose that questions are logged as issues and labelled: "question". The
issue is discussed via the list until someone feels they can make a
proposal that has a high chance of consensus. At that point they create a
new issue outlining their proposal, linking to the original
question/discussion and label is "proposal"


> > Nick and I will triage the issues as best we can to come up with a
> > list we think we can get through on a single call and put them into
> > the milestone for that call.
>
> Here's my concern with this approach: We address the easy questions and
> the hard questions end up hanging around for way longer than is healthy
> for the group. I think this is where we are today, with very few of the
> really hard architectural questions being actively discussed.
>
>
The triage process that Nick and I will use is as simple as taking any
proposals that have been logged and assigning them to a milestone
(implicitly a call for consensus).

It will be up to the group to make proposals and based on the comments
against that proposal Nick and I can get a feel for if the group is ready
to try and reach consensus.

Ideally the proposal will follow good discussion around a pointed question
so that any discussion over the proposal itself is mostly minor and relates
to wording or structure of the proposal as opposed to the fundamentals of
the proposal itself.


> I don't think we're on a healthy trajectory wrt. the specs at the
> moment. I'll put together an email to the group with a proposal to
> attempt to address these issues next.
>

Look forward to hearing your thoughts.


>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Web Payments: The Architect, the Sage, and the Moral Voice
> https://manu.sporny.org/2015/payments-collaboration/
>
>