[Qgis-psc] Request for appointing a formal release "traffic controller" role

Thu Jun 18 06:47:33 PDT 2020

What about going a bit further and changing a bit the way we see the roles
regarding the code base.
That would integrate what Tim is saying that there is no strict need to
have some many people with access rights to the code base.

* core committer: right to nominate voting members, name listed in the core
committers  in the application, access to grants / bugfixing
(automatically granted when you 50 (or 100) merged PRs)
* core integrator: the right to merge PRs (500+ merged PRs + 2 nominations
from other core integrators)
* release integrator: the aforementioned tasks (nominated by a core
integrator, validated by PSC)

Obviously we can have a few 2-5 release integrators.

Don't pay attention to naming or the decision rules, just about the idea in
general.

Denis

Le jeu. 18 juin 2020 à 15:35, Marco Bernasocchi <marco at qgis.org> a écrit :

> Thanks Nyall for raising the concern, and thanks all for the feedback,
>
> I absolutely agree we should have such a role but I think that (as
> Alessandro kind of says) we should have 2 of them since it is a super time
> intensive task (I see the hours Matthias is putting into this).
>
> As you mention in the original proposal yourself and Matthias are already
> doing this (THANKS a lot), So I's suggest the two of you keep on doing it.
>
> As Andreas said, this affects mainly the core developers which might not
> all be reading the PSC ml.
>
> If it is ok for you I'll propose you and Matthias for this role to the
> developer ML and ask if there would be others interested in committing to
> the role.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
> On 18.06.20 14:41, Alessandro Pasotti wrote:
>
>
> I'm +1 but I would recommend that there is also a vice-traffic-controller,
> just in case the main one needs backup.
>
> Cheers
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 9:18 AM Andreas Neumann <andreas at qgis.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Given that this affects mainly the core developers, I believe that PSC
>> shouldn't just decide this on top of them without any discussion with our
>> core developers. I would propose to send the proposal to the qgis-developer
>> mailing list, allow some time for discussion and then decide.
>>
>> It is good that we have a volunteer with Nyall (and I think he would be a
>> very good candidate), but we should allow other potential candidates.
>>
>> After that decision we should list the new role and person at
>> https://www.qgis.org/en/site/getinvolved/governance/governance.html
>>
>> Would this make sense? Perhaps Marco or Jürgen (as a developer and PSC
>> representative) could send the proposal to the qgis-developer mailing list?
>>
>> We can take some time here. There is no rush, but it would be good to
>> decide shortly after the release these days. Before that release, people
>> are super busy anway.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Thu, 18 Jun 2020 at 08:06, Tim Sutton <tim at kartoza.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> +1 from me to do this using the wording of your original proposal below.
>>> Just not sure who will be the person? Can we assume that you are
>>> volunteering Nyall? In which case I would propose to just appoint Nyall
>>> following the principle of using people who are actually motivated to do
>>> things :-)
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Tim
>>>
>>> On 17 Jun 2020, at 23:42, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 6 Jun 2020 at 07:43, Nyall Dawson <nyall.dawson at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi PSC,
>>>
>>> I'd like to raise the notion that qgis.org appoint a formal position
>>> for a release "traffic controller". This role would be responsible
>>> for:
>>>
>>>
>>> Any movement on this? Thinking more about the proposal, I think this
>>> role is CRITICAL in the "landing" stage of a release (e.g. the week
>>> leading up to a release). We need someone (authorised) to make the
>>> hard call on which fixes are suitable for inclusion and which need to
>>> be deferred till post release. (the last week is crucial here --
>>> there's barely any time for fixes to be widely tested, so risk of last
>>> minute regressions is extreme).
>>>
>>> I'm doing this now, on a completely unauthorised basis (see eg
>>> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/37044#issuecomment-645662038). And I
>>> expect at some stage someone is going to "fight back" and rightly
>>> question my authority to do this!
>>>
>>> Nyall
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 1. Making the final call on what is suitable for backporting to stable
>>> releases
>>> 2. Guide formal policy regarding the different stages in the lifetime
>>> of an LTR release, and develop written guidelines on what is
>>> acceptable to backport at different patch releases for an LTR
>>> 3. Make the final call on feature freeze exemptions during a
>>> pre-release freeze period.
>>>
>>> Some clarifications:
>>> - This role would be distinct from the release manager position, which
>>> is currently responsible for making QGIS releases, release packaging
>>> and release cycles. This would be a time-intensive role, and I don't
>>> think it should be added to the already (time-intensive) duties of the
>>> release manager position.
>>> - It would be a highly technical, very hands-on role, requiring
>>> **daily/bi-daily** monitoring of the pull request queue and issue
>>> tracker and full knowledge across all different parts of the QGIS
>>> codebase and the interplay between them (and the risks associated with
>>> changes). It is NOT a "project manager for QGIS" type role!
>>> - It would be a formal community role appointed by PSC, not a position
>>> on the PSC/board itself
>>>
>>> I'm raising this now after reflecting on the recent informal practice
>>> that Matthias Kuhn and I have been trialling where non-crash,
>>> non-data-corruption, non-trivial fixes get put into a "time delay"
>>> before being allowed to included in an LTR patch release. (see
>>> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/36718,
>>> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/36812). By doing this, we ensure
>>> that these fixes have exposure in a standard (non LTR) release for at
>>> least one month before they get included in the LTR release. The
>>> intention is to dramatically reduce the risk of regressions being
>>> introduced in the middle of an LTR release. (When this happens, it
>>> undermines user/enterprise confidence in the LTR process and reflects
>>> poorly on QGIS). This is a completely informal policy we developed and
>>> wanted to trial, and while I totally stand behind it and think it's a
>>> great way approach it makes me nervous that Matthias and I have
>>> basically just forced this policy ourselves. See
>>> https://github.com/qgis/QGIS/pull/36718#issuecomment-639428003 for
>>> discussion on this whether this policy is acceptable or not.
>>>
>>> IMO, suitable candidates would be developers with extensive experience
>>> across a whole range of areas of the QGIS code, and demonstrated
>>> history of timely reviews and responses to comments on github. I would
>>> suggest that suitable candidates, (based on activity on github over
>>> the past 12+ months and commits ranging across all areas of QGIS) are:
>>> - Matthias
>>> - Alessandro
>>> - Denis
>>> - (myself)
>>>
>>> Thanks for your consideration!
>>> Nyall
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> *Tim Sutton*
>>> tim at qgis.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Andreas Neumann
>> QGIS.ORG board member (treasurer)
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-psc mailing list
>> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
>
>
> --
> Alessandro Pasotti
> QCooperative:  www.qcooperative.net
> ItOpen:   www.itopen.it
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing listQgis-psc at lists.osgeo.orghttps://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
>
> --
> Marco Bernasocchi
>
> QGIS.org Chairhttp://berna.io
>
> _______________________________________________
> Qgis-psc mailing list
> Qgis-psc at lists.osgeo.org
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-psc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20200618/d8343384/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: qgis-icon-60x60.png
Type: image/png
Size: 4401 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-psc/attachments/20200618/d8343384/attachment-0001.png>