maherou
commented
2 years ago Hi Shahzeb,
As we stand up the E4S support contract, I would prefer that the E4S support team be the primary contact for these concerns. I am not opposed to having a list of maintainers for each product, but am thinking that using the E4S support team could do a good job of handling these issues as part of the tier-2 responsibilities.
Does this make sense to you and Sameer?
Mike
From: Shahzeb Siddiqui @.> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 10:50 AM To: E4S-Project/e4s @.> Cc: Heroux, Michael A @.>; Mention @.> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [E4S-Project/e4s] Complete Maintainers field for E4S Product Dictionary (Issue #45)
@sameershendehttps://github.com/sameershende @maherouhttps://github.com/maherou we have this page https://e4s.readthedocs.io/en/latest/E4S_Products.html which i helped create that summarize all the E4S Products in single page. This has been quite useful when we need to reach out to package maintainers and I'd like this list to be updated so facilities can reach out to the correct person. Often times the maintainers field in spack package is not the same as E4S POC simply because we may have a maintainer non-US citizen that may not have access to DOE machine so it doesn't make sense we reach out to some unknown person that may violate security protocols.
I'd like these maintainers to have access to DOE system at the minimum but these POC would also serve as a direct communication for any E4S support including
- User support tickets that reach up to this project
- POC for compliance with E4S community policy that would be useful for new products that get added into list using the issue form https://github.com/E4S-Project/e4s/issues/new/choose "New Package Request"
- POC for debugging package builds at facility and contributing test at facility
So one option is we reach out to each teams and get the POC and populate this ourselves, or we communicate this with all the ECP teams that are E4S member products and review this list and update this if its inaccurate. The second option would sustainable if users know about this page, often times folks may leave their position go elsewhere so it should be responsibility for teams to update the list as pose to us figuring this out.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/E4S-Project/e4s/issues/45, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHZIS4FGPZMRPPKKMKXERLU2PUE3ANCNFSM5OBKZSXQ. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOShttps://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Androidhttps://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>
sameershende
shahzebsiddiqui
@sameershende @maherou we have this page https://e4s.readthedocs.io/en/latest/E4S_Products.html which i helped create that summarize all the E4S Products in single page. This has been quite useful when we need to reach out to package maintainers and I'd like this list to be updated so facilities can reach out to the correct person. Often times the maintainers field in spack package is not the same as E4S POC simply because we may have a maintainer non-US citizen that may not have access to DOE machine so it doesn't make sense we reach out to some unknown person that may violate security protocols.
I'd like these maintainers to have access to DOE system at the minimum but these POC would also serve as a direct communication for any E4S support including
So one option is we reach out to each teams and get the POC and populate this ourselves, or we communicate this with all the ECP teams that are E4S member products and review this list and update this if its inaccurate. The second option would sustainable if users know about this page, often times folks may leave their position go elsewhere so it should be responsibility for teams to update the list as pose to us figuring this out.
In case you forgot you may want to read https://github.com/E4S-Project/e4s/pull/19 which started this discussion and led to this page