2023-07-10 - RFC retrospective

Date

Attendees 

Discussion items

TimeItemWhoNotes
1 minScribeAll

Jenn scribes

*

RFC Retrospective

All 

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

Action Items

  •