Page Comparison

Volunteer to take notes?Jenn scribes

All 

Background: 

• The final step in the RFC process is to have a retrospective and discuss how the process can be improved.
• Retro board:  https://easyretro.io/publicboard/dY8fCRqguiSDP3wtvSLhNzlULdM2/61b6d545-2d94-4007-93fa-d6263efb49a1
• The RFC which just completed:  https://github.com/folio-org/rfcs/blob/master/text/0002-kafka-tenant-collection-topics.md
• Thank you to Olamide Kolawole and everyone else who participated in this RFC!

Notes/Actions/etc:

• We didn't follow the process closely so it seems like there isn't consistency
• The metadata at the top about PR/issues approval is confusing
• Moving between stages is unclear
• If  community engagement is light  is such  a heavy process needed?
• Heaviness discourages. Also what is being asked for is "sure"
• Topics tackled from retro board:
  • Update docs to reflect action items that impact process
  • Hard to tell when it has been approved
    • Remove unneeded metadata from the top of the template and add a status field and an outcome field, bullets for each stages PR. Remove start date
  • Exit criteria are unclear
    • how to get into the first stage. RFC process just says create a PR. Created PR back into FOLIO. Instead closed and open for public review. RFC process description doesn't work with the branch mechanics. Try being more explicit about the mechanics
    • remove timeframes
    • preliminary review/timeframes haven't worked well, partly because we haven't really been following the process. don't really have enough data to know how long each step takes.
  • work on branching mechanism instructions
• Process may need more complete overhaul