2024-07-10 RFC Retro Board Review Meeting notes

1 min

Scribe

All

@Jakub Skoczen is next, followed by @Taras Spashchenko

Taras will take notes

Reminder:  Please copy/paste the Zoom chat into the notes.  If you miss it, this is saved along with the meeting recording, but having it here has benefits.

5 min

Vote on discussion points

All

Please review the cards in the "Action Items" column and vote (thumbs up) for your top 3 discussion points.

https://easyretro.io/publicboard/dY8fCRqguiSDP3wtvSLhNzlULdM2/1cf104bb-6aa4-4eb3-a878-0f9f1e235436

*

Discussion of various RFC topics

All

Discussion Points:

RFC Process Retrospective:

• Reviewed the duration of the RFC process, specifically the application formalization RFC which took 34 weeks.

• Identified that each stage of the RFC process can be too lengthy.

Suggestions and Decisions:

1. Feedback Windows:

   • Establishing review windows for feedback in different stages of the RFC process.

   • Preliminary review: 2 weeks.

   • Draft refinement: 1 month.

   • Public review: 1 month.

   • Emphasize periodic reminders to encourage timely feedback.

2. Time Boxing:

   • Adjusting time boxes for each stage to keep the process moving efficiently.

   • Consider reducing draft refinement time from 16 weeks to 6 weeks.

3. Simplifying the Process:

   • Discussed the potential removal of the draft refinement stage to streamline the process.

   • Suggested extending the public review stage to accommodate more feedback.

4. Alternatives to GitHub PRs:

   • Consider using Google Docs or the Folio wiki for public review to facilitate easier collaboration and feedback.

   • Agreed to pilot using the wiki for a few RFCs before making a full transition.

   • Recognized the challenge of transitioning from GitHub to the wiki and the need for a clear proposal.

Action Items:

1. Incorporate Review Windows:

   • Taras to update the RFC process documentation to include review windows and adjust time boxes accordingly. (Done)

   • Notes on RFC Review Windows

     Preliminary Review:

     • Duration: Approximately 2 weeks

     • Reasoning: 1 week is too short due to vacations/holidays/etc.

     Draft Refinement:

     • Duration: Approximately 1 month

     • Emphasis: Need to get "the right" people involved in the subgroup - those who can be active and provide timely feedback

     Public Review:

     • Duration: Approximately 1 month

     • Communication: Periodic reminders indicating how much time remains in the feedback window (weekly? via Slack?)

     Final Review:

     • Timeboxing: This may not be needed. This stage seems to move quickly.

     • If consistency is desired, a short duration (e.g., 1 week) could be chosen.

     Overall Duration:

     • Approximately 16-17 weeks when incorporating review windows and accounting for administrative overhead, making adjustments, etc.

2. Simplify the Process:

   • Craig to adjust the RFC process by removing the draft refinement stage and extending the public review stage.

   • The best opportunity to simplify the process may be removal of the draft refinement stage.

     If we do this, the duration of the public review stage may need to be extended to allow for additional time to make adjustments, answer questions, clarify things, etc.

     Suggest that submitters reach out to community stakeholders/TC/etc. during the RFC preparation stage to get the type of feedback typically given during the draft refinement stage.

     ACTIONS:

     • Craig: Remove the Draft Refinement stage from the RFC Process documentation, make minor adjustments to language of the RFC Prep and Public Review stages (see above).

     • Craig: Remove the Draft Review PR from the metadata.

3. Proposal for Wiki Transition:

   • Need a volunteer to create a proposal for transitioning RFCs to the wiki. This will be discussed in future meetings if no volunteer is found.

   • Wiki has the functionality needed (if required) to control who can leave comments/edit/view/etc. RFCs. So that's not a huge concern.

     Question: This will leave to some RFCs living in GH, and others on the Wiki. How do we migrate/consolidate them? cross-reference? etc.

     Maybe give the Wiki a try and only look into migration/consolidation after the fact.

     ACTIONS:

     • All: generate a simple proposal for how we this can be adapted to the wiki (stage transitions, page hierarchy/structure).

     • Craig/Jenn will add this as a topic for a future Wed. meeting.

4. Emphasize the importance of logging and official decision upon the conclusion of an RFC. This has been missed in recent cases.

   Craig McNally

   • Craig will adjust the RFC Process documentation to highlight this point.

5. Dedicated Discussion on Eureka:

   • Schedule a dedicated discussion to evaluate whether the RFC process is suitable for Eureka, considering its scope and complexity.

Next Steps:

• Implement the agreed changes to the RFC process.

• Monitor and review the effectiveness of the changes in future RFC cycles.

• Discuss the wiki transition and Eureka evaluation in upcoming meetings.

NA

Zoom Chat

00:05:52 Craig McNally: https://easyretro.io/publicboard/dY8fCRqguiSDP3wtvSLhNzlULdM2/1cf104bb-6aa4-4eb3-a878-0f9f1e235436 01:03:42 Marc Johnson: I agree. It deserves a dedicated discussion 01:04:07 Ingolf Kuss: Reacted to "I agree. It deserves..." with 👍