search

nodejs / CTC

Node.js Core Technical Committee & Collaborators
80 stars 27 forks source link

Suggested change for Stand Up #119

Closed MylesBorins closed 7 years ago

MylesBorins commented 7 years ago

I think it might be more useful for the CTC standup to be organized by working groups / sub systems. Thoughts?

edit:

This can be used for external communications + increased visibility

joshgav commented 7 years ago

Perhaps a WG-oriented standup should be part of TSC meetings?

Trott commented 7 years ago

I like the idea. I'm not sure of the details of how it would work. Do you have anything specific in mind on how it would work?

ChALkeR commented 7 years ago

I don't think that I undersand this proposal without a concrete example. @MylesBorins could you provide an example of how would any previous standup look like in this format?

mcollina commented 7 years ago

Either CTC or TSC is fine. Do we have 100% wg coverage in the TSC? Should we ask someone from each wg to drop a couple of lines before each meeting?

mhdawson commented 7 years ago

Is the proposal to drop the individual stand up ? I think that would make sense to me even if we don't replace it with anything else. Adding it into the minutes in advance seems like enough to me and it would eliminate the time we spend going through it.

I'm also thinking we can probably also drop the review of the previous meeting. I don't think we have seen that generate additional conversation.

MylesBorins commented 7 years ago

The proposal is indeed to drop the individual standup and replace it with the wg standup. I think this is a good way to let people know what is going on in the project (without looking at a doc).

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Michael Dawson notifications@github.com wrote:

Is the proposal to drop the individual stand up ? I think that would make sense to me even if we don't replace it with anything else. Adding it into the minutes in advance seems like enough to me and it would eliminate the time we spend going through it.

I'm also thinking we can probably also drop the review of the previous meeting. I don't think we have seen that generate additional conversation.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/issues/119#issuecomment-300306225, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV_wrTxpui3doB7xNPbwcI8N0KmK2ks5r4NnIgaJpZM4NT_mo .

jasnell commented 7 years ago

+1 ... I have some larger changes that I'm working on a proposal for. In the meantime, this would definitely be good. The individual standup is largely useless.

joshgav commented 7 years ago

I think it would be helpful to have an open part of the meeting for sharing items we think would be of interest to the technical group, I use the CTC standup for that occasionally. Perhaps we can make that part of the Q&A/Other section at the end.

joshgav commented 7 years ago

The TSC's job is to support the CTC and WGs and I think a weekly update/standup would facilitate doing that job better. Since the CTC only manages a subset of WG's, I think it would be most efficient for the TSC to manage this for all WG's and the CTC too. I'll open a corresponding issue in nodejs/TSC to discuss and if agreed formulate a plan.

By managing this from the TSC we can also free up CTC to stay focused on core, which is important!

joshgav commented 7 years ago

@joshgav

I'll open a corresponding issue in nodejs/TSC to discuss and if agreed formulate a plan.

Actually https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/109 is already open, and @jasnell (comment) has been thinking about this too :). Will continue the discussion there.

jasnell commented 7 years ago

The CTC skipped the standup on today's call without any objections being raised. The meeting was rather productive. I'm happy with leaving this to the chair's discretion (cc @Trott) but I think it's pretty well settled at this point.

Trott commented 7 years ago

I think it's pretty well settled at this point.

@jasnell If I'm understanding correctly:

Does that sound about right?

Trott commented 7 years ago

/cc @MylesBorins on that last comment too since it's his proposal here in the first place and that "understanding" on my part is a modification of it...

jasnell commented 7 years ago

Yes. That is the intent. With the caveat that the tsc currently does not have great wg coverage. Or, at least, it's not clear if we do

nebrius commented 7 years ago

Yes. That is the intent. With the caveat that the tsc currently does not have great wg coverage. Or, at least, it's not clear if we do

I'm fairly certain we don't...if nothing else I feel like we don't have great insight into whether or not we do, which is an issue in and of itself.

MylesBorins commented 7 years ago

ATM I don't think it really makes sense to live in the TSC, the stakeholders are not there

mhdawson commented 7 years ago

So these are the working groups based on the current CTC readme:

Website
Streams
Build (coverage -> Rod, Michael)
Diagnostics (coverage -Josh, I'm also ramping up involvement)
i18n (covers translations)
Evangelism  (does this fit with community commitee ?)
Docker
Addon API  (coverage -> Ben).  There is also the question of whether the the api WG that was never fully chartered should be pulled in.  If that was the case we'd have more coverage.
Benchmarking (coverage -> Michael)
Post-mortem (coverage -> Michael
Intl - (main participant is Stephen Loomis)
Documentation (being de-chartered)
Testing (being de-chartered) - do think there is a gap here.
LTS (being chartered, coverage Michael, James)
mhdawson commented 7 years ago

So we have a few gaps in coverage but I don't see that's been the problem. Its more that we have not made it a priority to ask work groups for updates or if they need help.

jasnell commented 7 years ago

Aside from that, we have not made it a priority to ensure that decisions that are made reflect the consensus of the WGs. Rather, we tend to make decisions based on the individual opinions of people who just happen to overlap coverage with various WGs. That's a bit of a problem.

Trott commented 7 years ago

We stopped doing standups altogether some time ago in the CTC. Not sure if we're still doing it in TSC meetings. In any event, this issue has been inactive for a while and this repository is now obsolete. I'm going to close this, but feel free to open another issue in a relevant active repository (TSC perhaps?) and include a link back to this issue if this is a subject that should receive continued attention.