Proposal: Only close meta discussion issues after parsing for follow-up issues #108

circlebuilder commented 2023年01月13日 10:27:25 +01:00

This Meta repository contains Discussion labeled issues where there's often really a lot of background info. That makes them really hard to close, or when closed prematurely points brought up may not be followed-up on and discussion was in vain.

Before closing a Discussion issue, someone should go through all text and identify areas that may need a follow-up. For any follow-ups separate issues can / should be created. Preferably more on-topic and more directly actionable.

This Meta repository contains Discussion labeled issues where there's often really a lot of background info. That makes them really hard to close, or when closed prematurely points brought up may not be followed-up on and discussion was in vain. Before closing a Discussion issue, someone should go through all text and identify areas that may need a follow-up. For any follow-ups separate issues can / should be created. Preferably more on-topic and more directly actionable.

circlebuilder commented 2023年01月13日 11:17:00 +01:00

Maybe a Label "Split" might be created.. adding the label and assigning to someone to do this task.

This person will read the discussion text and make a list of bullets and mentions who brought up the point to possibly follow-up on.

Maybe a Label "Split" might be created.. adding the label and assigning to someone to do this task. This person will read the discussion text and make a list of bullets and mentions who brought up the point to possibly follow-up on.

Ghost commented 2023年02月16日 00:54:41 +01:00

This proposal did not get much traction, do you still want to push this and try to get people on board?

This proposal did not get much traction, do you still want to push this and try to get people on board?

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月16日 11:29:42 +01:00

In this issue I mention my observation of inefficiencies of the Discussion-type issues, and also the risk that prematurely closing discussion makes people feel their voice is not heard.

However, I am not central to evolving the processes of Forgejo. The core teams / people closely involved should adopt process improvement they feel comfortable with.

So feel free to close if you think this isn't an issue that needs action.

In this issue I mention my observation of inefficiencies of the Discussion-type issues, and also the risk that prematurely closing discussion makes people feel their voice is not heard. However, I am not central to evolving the processes of Forgejo. The core teams / people closely involved should adopt process improvement they feel comfortable with. So feel free to close if you think this isn't an issue that needs action.

KaKi87 commented 2023年02月16日 12:24:17 +01:00

I think a simpler approach would be to consider those as OP-centric, like on forums : the person who asked the question decides whether it has been answered (then close the issue) or not (then keep the issue open).

If someone else has a related question, they should ask it as a new issue.

This Meta repository contains Discussion labeled issues

I can't find such label ?

I think a simpler approach would be to consider those as OP-centric, like on forums : the person who asked the question decides whether it has been answered (then close the issue) or not (then keep the issue open). If someone else has a related question, they should ask it as a new issue. > This Meta repository contains Discussion labeled issues I can't find such label ?

Ghost commented 2023年02月16日 12:54:27 +01:00

So feel free to close if you think this isn't an issue that needs action.

This is not what I asked. Do you want to take action to advance that issue?

> So feel free to close if you think this isn't an issue that needs action. This is not what I asked. Do you want to take action to advance that issue?

Ghost commented 2023年02月16日 12:55:11 +01:00

This Meta repository contains Discussion labeled issues

I can't find such label ?

The labels were since reorganized and this label no longer exists.

> > This Meta repository contains Discussion labeled issues > > I can't find such label ? The labels were since reorganized and this label no longer exists.

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月16日 13:20:59 +01:00

Do you want to take action to advance that issue?

I will defer to the other issue of "Agile Project Tracks", where in my latest comment there's a diagram. The grooming activities here include parsing and splitting long discussion issues (Epics) into actionable sub-issues (User stories).

So consider that issue my proposal, and then this can be closed.

> Do you want to take action to advance that issue? I will defer to the other issue of "Agile Project Tracks", where in my [latest comment](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/meta/issues/151#issuecomment-804772) there's a diagram. The grooming activities here include parsing and splitting long discussion issues (Epics) into actionable sub-issues (User stories). So consider that issue my proposal, and then this can be closed.

KaKi87 commented 2023年02月16日 13:45:02 +01:00

The grooming activities here include parsing and splitting long discussion issues (Epics) into actionable sub-issues (User stories).

But that's related to the software repo for development-related issues, not for to this meta repo for discussion issues, right ?

> The grooming activities here include parsing and splitting long discussion issues (Epics) into actionable sub-issues (User stories). But that's related to the software repo for development-related issues, not for to this meta repo for discussion issues, right ?

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月16日 17:51:54 +01:00

That proposal is more broad-scoped and involves restructuring repo's to shape the various (I propose four) project tracks. In that design there won't be a meta, but both meta and sustainability are merged into a forgejo-process to represent the Governance project track. Governance then is the container concept involving ALL the project's processes & activities, and improvements thereof.

That proposal is more broad-scoped and involves restructuring repo's to shape the various (I propose four) project tracks. In that design there won't be a `meta`, but both `meta` and `sustainability` are merged into a `forgejo-process` to represent the Governance project track. Governance then is the container concept involving ALL the project's processes & activities, and improvements thereof.

fr33domlover commented 2023年02月17日 22:58:46 +01:00

@circlebuilder, can you specify some 2-3 issues that you saw, in which that problem of lots-of-text was/is most evident? I'd like to look a them and try to extract learning about how to do things differently (making a baby step that is within our capacity). And we can discuss that together on Matrix, would that be okay?

@circlebuilder, **can you specify some 2-3 issues** that you saw, in which that problem of lots-of-text was/is most evident? I'd like to look a them and try to extract learning about how to do things differently (making a baby step that is within our capacity). And we can discuss that together on Matrix, would that be okay?

circlebuilder commented 2023年02月18日 11:13:19 +01:00

Yes, I can.

• Governance Bootstrap (#19)
• Forgejo documentation (#67)
• Create a Roadmap (#10)

The issue about Roadmap is an outlier. It doesn't have a lot of comments yet. But the title is clearly referring to an Epic. You can't just add items to a roadmap.. each item needs to be carefully considered. While that might happen in a big mega-thread, it is better to, as soon as a candidate item is named, create a sub-issue to investigate further.

On the whole the Titles of an issue say a lot about their actionability, whether they are 'Epics' or 'User stories' (I use that terminology just as example, taken from agile).

Going a bit tangential, but the curation/grooming method can be similar, is how to deal with Meetings. Take e.g. #154 Governance meeting, a format can be:

• Meeting issue ('Epic') with Input issues related to agenda points.
• [input issues] --> [meeting] --> [output issues]

Yes, I can. - Governance Bootstrap (#19) - Forgejo documentation (#67) - Create a Roadmap (#10) The issue about Roadmap is an outlier. It doesn't have a lot of comments yet. But the title is clearly referring to an Epic. You can't just add items to a roadmap.. each item needs to be carefully considered. While that might happen in a big mega-thread, it is better to, as soon as a candidate item is named, create a sub-issue to investigate further. On the whole the Titles of an issue say a lot about their actionability, whether they are 'Epics' or 'User stories' (I use that terminology just as example, taken from agile). Going a bit tangential, but the curation/grooming method can be similar, is how to deal with Meetings. Take e.g. #154 Governance meeting, a format can be: - Meeting issue ('Epic') with Input issues related to agenda points. - `[input issues]` --> `[meeting]` --> `[output issues]`