| * | RFC Retrospective | | Background:
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
|