Queue review proposals

[David Planella]

Al 07/02/12 00:33, En/na Jono Bacon ha escrit:
> On 6 February 2012 09:30, Allison Randal<allison at lohutok.net>  wrote:
>> On 02/05/2012 11:38 AM, David Planella wrote:
>>>> Last night I spent a couple of hours looking through all apps in the
>>>> queue and wrote a report [1] that I hope can be helpful as a first-pass
>>>> review. I looked at all of the apps pending review, wrote some comments
>>>> and recommendations on the next actions to take.
>>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>>>> I think it might be a good idea to distribute the work to cut down the
>>>> queue by assigning reviewers to each package. Having looked at the queue
>>>> in detail, I'm sure we can manage to reduce the queue to a manageable
>>>> size and get some of these cool apps into extras by the end of next week.
>>
>> We tried assigning reviewers in the first year of the ARB, and it didn't
>> work. It just meant that reviews completely blocked when the assigned
>> reviewer didn't have time, and no one else felt they could pick up the
>> app and see it through.
>>
>> I'll suggest an alternative, which is that we each post to the mailing
>> list with running updates on whatever apps we look at or work on and
>> what we do. That way, we're all aware of the current status of
>> submissions, and what needs to be done next.
>
> While I agree with the idea of blockers on certain packages, I also
> think this might become a blocker too.
>
> I would instead recommend that the ARB picks a set of apps each week
> and sees those apps through to completion. The problem we have right
> now is that there are a stack of half-reviewed apps and David's goal
> of the report is to bring visibility on those statuses to get them
> over the hump.
>

There are two aspects here:

- Cleaning up the current apps queue, which has lately been building up
- Come out with a review process that's sustainable and guarantees 
feedback and responsiveness

For the first one I proposed assignments to act mainly on the low 
hanging fruit items: those apps already packaged and ready for review. 
There are just a bunch of them, and the idea is to bring focus on them 
and work in a coordinated way to get them published.

I totally agree that in some occasions the assignee might become a 
blocker (I've seen this in my translation team, where we work by 
assigning packages to translators), but that's where regular 
communication helps: if someone cannot take care of a review they signed 
up for, they should feel free to say so at the next review meeting, or 
on the mailing list, or on IRC... And the same for other members - when 
the queue is looked at, if someone has been looking at a particular app 
for quite a while, other members should be encouraged to help them and 
pick up their review.

What I think is important is to keep cadence, which is why I like any 
proposal that promotes that apps are reviewed regularly, in any way it 
suits the ARB best (IRC meeting, weekly report on the ML, etc...)

I'd much rather tell app developers that it will take a week to be 
looked at than to tell them that it might take from a day to any open 
time window.

>>>> - Sync up next Friday or any other suitable day next week on a 'Queue
>>>> Review Status' meeting
>>
>> I'd be happy to sync on Fridays, during the review shifts seems to make
>> sense. But, if it comes to a choice between spending time working on
>> apps, and spending time talking about apps, the first is more important.
>
> Totally agree!
>

I fully agree on this too! And to be clear, this proposal is all about 
taking action, not discussion.

>> I'd rather see a commitment to spend an hour a week (anytime during the
>> week) working on apps with an update sent to the mailing list, than a
>> commitment to spend an hour a week (all at the same time) on IRC.
>
> So how about if there is a short meeting to pick the apps for the week
> and then the ARB focuses on driving one of the following outcomes:
>
>   * Approval
>   * Rejection
>   * Needs Information
>
> If there is a Needs Information I would recommend that the item stays
> on the list to keep the urgency of the app in everyone's minds.
>

I like Jono's proposal too. I think that now that we've got some options 
on the table, it would be a good opportunity to get input from all ARB 
members, decide upon one and get some of the cool apps in the queue 
published.

Thanks!

Regards,
David.