Open ivargrimstad opened 2 months ago
In case of my two specs, the project leads themselves also need to juggle between multiple specs, often at the same time, so (just in my case, I guess there are a few others) the delay wasn't just because I have a major client (actually a fellow Spec Committee member company, but in a different, much more regulated and politically pressurized industry) with delivery pressure of their own which contractors often have to handle...
I cannot say, how to best handle the situation of project leads with too many specs at the same time, but if someone like me had an unforseen time constraint by a customer, or say somebody got sick, could swapping specs between mentors be an option, so that the person with limited time in a certain period reviews another spec in a later wave?
Some of the delay may also be the one doing the work on the PR to respond to a review. What can we do to improve responses to review comments? If something comes up then we need communication to the committee to look for others to help.
As a committee we need to act quicker to re-assign mentor if for what-ever reason a mentor is unable to find the time to progress a PR to ballot. This is in the control of the Specification Committee. The mentor needs to be promptly assigned when the spec project creates a PR, and the mentor needs to engage to review and start commenting. Specificaton projects are also encouraged to keep the specification committee updated on their release plans ahead of creating a PR to initiate the ballot process. The protocol to be adopted for upcoming ballots is that after 2 weeks, if the mentor has not engaged, the PR will be re-assigned. This protocol will be noted in the minutes and the ballot tracking spreadsheet.
We should evaluate and reassess how we can do this better.
Some things to consider solving:
Should we form a subgroup of the spec committee to facilitate the ballots?