Open eladalon1983 opened 2 years ago
if an issue or PR is blocked for lack of reaction, the expected procedure would be to raise the attention of the chairs to this blocking pattern and put the onus on them to figure out how to move forward (and how to prioritize these different requests for attention from a limited pool of resources)
if an issue or PR is blocked for lack of reaction, the expected procedure would be to raise the attention of the chairs to this blocking pattern and put the onus on them to figure out how to move forward (and how to prioritize these different requests for attention from a limited pool of resources)
Thanks.
I think this thread is a good place to clarify some of the fine details and edge-cases.
Let me clarify that contacting the chairs shouldn't be viewed or taken as a complaint or an appeal: the idea is if, as an editor or an implementor, your progress is stuck due to lack of input on an issue or a pull request, you would let the chairs know with some contextualization on the priority of the said discussion.
I've submitted for review by the chairs a document that tries to document in more details how we would operationalize that workmode - that will include information about how to contact the chairs, with what information, etc.
The newly published workmode.md reads:
I think this is counter-productive. The real issue is not that people flag others too often; the real issue is that repeated flagging over weeks and months is often necessary in this WG. And emails and other reminders sent out-of-band are often ignored. What we need are SLOs for a reasonable response time, and a mechanism to escalate when progress is delayed. If anyone in this WG repeatedly ignores requests to engage with an issue - which happens all too often - we need a clear procedure other than begging by email and chat.