On Jan 15, 2016 10:17, "Ralph Bean" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 02:46:38PM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 04:41:58PM -0500, Ralph Bean wrote:
> > > OK -- assessment time. How did Tech Debt Week go?
> > >
> > > There's a list at the bottom of the wiki page of the things we were
> > > able to accomplish: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Debt
> > >
> > > We got a good bit of ansible stuff cleaned up. Staging had a few
> > > sites that were broken and we fixed those in tandem with fixing rube,
> > > our staging-testing tool. We were able to silence some of the error
> > > emails that were unnecessarily coming out of the bodhi backend (thus
> > > raising the signal-to-noise ratio). And we were able to remove some
> > > of the code duplication around python-fedora (both server side
> > > components like flask_fas_openid and client-side components like the
> > > openidbaseclient). That's a good chunk, especially for a first try
> > > at organized tech debt fighting.
> > >
> > > I'll note that participation was not up to the level I was expecting.
> > > It seemed like there was sizable interest at Flock and in infra
> > > meetings at the end of 2015, but there were only a few of us actually
> > > working on tech debt tasks during the week.
> > >
> > > I've been thinking about it and trying to come up with possible
> > > explanations:
> > > - It was the first time we tried something like this. We weren't sure
> > > what to do and so we just need to try again until its comfortable.
> > > - It was too poorly defined. We were pretty vague about what was
> > > kinds of things to do. The intent was to open up people to pursue
> > > what they want to hack on, but perhaps it was a turn-off.
> > > - The first week of the New Year wasn't the best choice of time.
> > > Perhaps people were anxious to get the jump on other projects after
> > > the holidays and debt-wrangling wasn't attractive.
> > > - Others?
> > >
> > > Should we try this again in a few months? If so, what should we try
> > > differently?
> > I kinda feel guilty on this to not have been of more help. One thing I have been
> > wondering for this type of work is if we could approach it in a 'sprint' mode.
> > Set-up a small meeting 15/30 minutes at the beginning of the day, review the
> > tasks, everyone picks one, fix it and adjust the wiki.
> > Being able to review the tasks, pick the most important and spread them among
> > the group might allow us to get into a team effort spirit.
> I like it! Timezones make it a little tricky since "beginning of the
> day" varies for everyone. But we could do something each day where
> people from one set of timezones could report "we did X today, we'll
> do Y tomorrow" and people from the other timezones could say "cool,
> we'll do Z today".
> > Might help giving the feeling you're not the only one doing boring work and
> > helps to see progress (just like when you do a bug-process week where you try to
> > close as many tickets as possible, the more you close, the more progress you
> > see).
> > Maybe an idea for next time :)
> Yeah. We should talk about a next time, too. Maybe late May or early
In glad we got this first one on the books, and I have a few ideas for next time:
- badge for participation
- promotional article on commblog
- on-site satellite events, like the python3 porting hackfest in November 2015
- picking a day further from the holidays
This was on my radar, but I was still catching up on other loops. Def wanna help do more and promote more next time around.
> > Pierre
> > _______________________________________________
> > infrastructure mailing list
> > email@example.com
> > http://firstname.lastname@example.org
> infrastructure mailing list