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.
*
RFC Proposal to the RSMG
All
Goal: Review the proposal to the RSMG for language in the release schedule template suggesting RFCs
Notes:
Proposal:
This is written as if an updated to the Quesnelia schedule just to understand the timeline, even though obviously we are not editing the Q schedule at this point.
Existing: 11 Mar 2024 Ramsons R2 2024 release scope refinement deadline POs prepare list of UXPROD features aligned with Ramsons R2 2024 team capacity. PO present prepared scope at next PO Weekly meeting at <TBD>
Existing: 13 Sep 2024 (existing deadline) Deadline for acceptance of new modules by Technical Council at Ramsons (R2 2024)
This language was added to the TCR process:
If some of the failures are due to proposed architectural (or other cross-module) changes, the TC may request that Submitter first propose those changes via the RFC process to get sufficient community input. In that situation the TC may defer its decision pending the resolution of the RFC. (See Before Development.)
Doing RFCs is meant to help smooth out the TCR process when large changes are part of a module
Is it clear enough whether or not something should get an RFC?
If this is discretionary does it belong on the schedule?
Goal is to encourage early contact to see if RFC is recommended for any changes/additions. The contact with TC is what we'd like to see more on the 'required' side
Are we saying teams MUST inform TC of architectural changes they are planning to make?
This would be a four month heads up, approximately
Does the community actually back this kind of oversight in the face of political pressures in the community?
Maybe being clearer about what really is or is not a requirement would help?
The original intentional was to be a friendly and useful reminder not a new requirement, is that still what we want?
If we are going to have standards we should stick to them and let the political conflicts play out
How are teams going to know they should do an RFC if we don't tell them? We should at least make the desire to have them clear
Community moves at a slower pace?
Work has been done to streamline RFCs but we need more experience to see how long it takes
Desire to see RFC time point remain as a suggestion
RMS group only wants to see required things on their timeline
TC is comfortable with sharing the language proposed and see if RMS will accept it