[11:11:50 AM] ‎sajolida‎: yay, and sorry for the mess→delay :)
‎[11:12:05 AM] ‎sajolida‎: i haven't prepare the session either (epic times!)
‎[11:12:09 AM] ‎sajolida‎: but i'll give a short intro
‎[11:12:27 AM] ‎sajolida‎: since ...2014? we had this thing called "Hole in the Roof"
‎[11:12:50 AM] ‎sajolida‎: which was a politically correct renaming of "Broken Window"
‎[11:13:26 AM] ‎sajolida‎: ...looking for the Redmine query...
‎[11:13:28 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: (I could not find any documented official definition)
‎[11:13:33 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: https://labs.riseup.net/code/versions/198
‎[11:13:44 AM] ‎sajolida‎: https://labs.riseup.net/code/versions/198
‎[11:14:20 AM] ‎sajolida‎: the idea was to have a way to track bug that might not seem super urgent but that, if not tackled, would hit us badly in the back at some point in the future
‎[11:14:26 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: (2014 was the renaming, we had the other thing for longer)
‎[11:14:41 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: interesting, i have a quite different definition
‎[11:14:49 AM] ‎sajolida‎: as a way to remind us of their existence we added a point to the monthly meeting about finding volunteers to tackle them
‎[11:14:59 AM] ‎sajolida‎: intrigeri: shoot your definition! :)
‎[11:15:32 AM] ‎sajolida‎: NB: I'll take notes and follow up after the meeting
‎[11:16:34 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: something like "problems we ought to have fixed for a while already but we've failed to". I could find the original definition *if it helps*
‎[11:17:11 AM] ‎sajolida‎: ok, so we have quite different definitions... interesting
‎[11:17:11 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: I found "something that, if not fixed quickly, will degrade more or less quickly, and will make our life more and more painful" that matches sajolida's definition more closely than mine.
‎[11:17:13 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: whatever.
‎[11:18:15 AM] ‎segfault‎: ok, different definitions, but whatever
‎[11:18:19 AM] ‎sajolida‎: following up on the history... but these points in the monthly meetings were often frustrating (not many people tackling HitR (Hole in the Roof)) thoug sometimes it helped
‎[11:18:20 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: looking at the current list of tickets, it *seems* that most items fall into my definition more than in the other, but again: whatever.
‎[11:18:51 AM] ‎sajolida‎: i disagree with "whatever" but let's clarify now what we want to get from this meeting
i would say:
‎[11:19:43 AM] ‎sajolida‎: - Do we want to change (or improve) on the definition and the idea of having "Holes in the Roof"?
- Which process do we want to update this list of tickets?
- Which process do we want to find people to tackle them?
‎[11:19:57 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sounds good to me
‎[11:20:10 AM] ‎segfault‎: ok
‎[11:20:30 AM] ‎sajolida‎: seeing that we have very different definition, i think here is the space to reflect more on what we want to achieve through these HitR
‎[11:21:27 AM] ‎sajolida‎: at last for me, intrigeri's definition is too vague and could fit many more tickets
‎[11:21:46 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: shall I explain how this tool is useful to *me* in practice? this might help fine tune the definition.
‎[11:21:53 AM] ‎sajolida‎: ok!
‎[11:21:54 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: I agree.
‎[11:22:29 AM] ‎segfault‎: yeah, i would like to understand why we need this at all, and how this is more useful than just setting the priority to high or something
‎[11:22:39 AM] ‎sajolida‎: segfault: +1
‎[11:25:11 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: tickets on my plate are roughly sorted in 4 subsets: 1. sponsor deliverables that have a mostly fixed schedule; 2. other stuff scheduled for the next release or next+1 (generally that's Core work); 3. Hole in the Roof i.e. longstanding issues I should really work on whenever I can; 4. other tickets, that generally can totally wait. In the past (and recently) having this HitR target version that's sorted immediately after next release on my Redmine view helped me keep them in mind "just enough", i.e. enough to be visible so when I have some extra time I can pick one; and not too much, because these longstanding issues (and the fact we have a hard time dedicating resources to them) are somewhat depressing.
‎[11:26:24 AM] ‎segfault‎: intrigeri: ok, thanks for explaining
‎[11:26:25 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: it might be that this works / is needed (?) only because of tooling, i.e. on my Redmine view, all tickets that have a target version are sorted above those that have none => even a high prio ticket will be less visible than whatever other thing I have to do in 1 year, if it has no target version.
‎[11:27:06 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: technically, if we had no HitR, I could have a 3rd (!) always open Redmine view, that's only about tickets with no target version, and this would achieve *mostly* the same result.
‎[11:28:04 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: but even if nobody else wants to use this tool and we give up on the general idea, I'd like to keep it for my own personal use, if it's not a problem for others.
‎[11:28:07 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: .
‎[11:28:21 AM] ‎segfault‎: intrigeri: indeed, it does sound like for you the reason for the HitR is mainly limitations of redmine
‎[11:29:04 AM] ‎emmapeel‎: in my opinion, this ticket gardening solutions work much better when implemented, because they allow us to look at the tickets in a different way. after a while they stop working and maybe a new POV around the tickets kicks some new tickets on the light. rather than thinking on dropping the hole on the roof, maybe we need some other new light on the triaging.
‎[11:29:34 AM] ‎sajolida‎: so that's HitR as tool for personal organization, regarding commitments that you already took towards the project
‎[11:29:54 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault:  yes and no. it's also about semantics: my tickets without target version == I should do it some day but if not it's not such a big deal; HitR == I should really really do this because it's depressing to keep this problem open.
‎[11:29:55 AM] ‎emmapeel‎: also i agree with intrigeri that a lot of stuff stays there because nobody has time or energy to work it... so some problems are not really the model of the HotR
‎[11:30:35 AM] ‎segfault‎: intrigeri: but i think the same semantic would be expressed by setting the priority to "high" or "urgent"
‎[11:30:41 AM] ‎segfault‎: no?
‎[11:31:12 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: yes, possibly I could force my mind to understand it this way.
‎[11:31:54 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: shall we zoom out and think about the benefits for the project (not only for me) of having this category?
‎[11:32:14 AM] ‎sajolida‎: yes, i was writing this:
« my definition was more about project-wide organization: having collective processes and tools to not leave serious stuff under the radar... »
‎[11:32:25 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sure
‎[11:33:18 AM] ‎sajolida‎: history lesson: what's the historical relationship between HitR and ticket gardening? which came first and why?
‎[11:33:23 AM] ‎sajolida‎: intrigeri: ^ :)
‎[11:33:31 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: one option could be to drop this HitR tool and instead fold it back into our normal roadmapping process: either we put it on the roadmap with an assignee, or it's left around with no assignee but High priority (== roughly HitR)
‎[11:33:42 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: I'm pretty sure HitR came first.
‎[11:33:56 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: it dates back to ague's involvement days.
‎[11:34:05 AM] ‎sajolida‎: ok
‎[11:34:05 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: i.e. 2013 I think
‎[11:34:43 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: and interestingly, not many of our current HitR are that old i.e. we did fix quite a few of them!
‎[11:34:49 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: (=> this tool somewhat works)
‎[11:34:53 AM] ‎sajolida‎: yes, we definitely did!
‎[11:35:08 AM] ‎segfault‎: and we removed some from hole in the roof i think
‎[11:35:35 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: rarely, but yes.
‎[11:36:19 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: I have a hard time thinking about this 1st discussion point without thinking about how we could do without HitR..
‎[11:36:55 AM] ‎sajolida‎: oh yes, i don't pretend that this discussion is structured in any way :)
‎[11:37:46 AM] ‎sajolida‎: something else in history that happened in HitR and ticket gardening is that we now have teams doing paid core work... and i'm wondering how the two things relate
‎[11:38:06 AM] ‎sajolida‎: i mean... what I would put in HitR sounds like good candidates for core work as well
‎[11:40:37 AM] ‎sajolida‎: according to my definition, "stuff that has been lying around for too long and will hit us in the back". this should be spotted during ticket gardening and raised on the radar of the most relevant core team...
‎[11:41:05 AM] ‎segfault‎: i think whether we should keep actively using the HitR depends on 1. we see a semantic difference to "no assignee but high priority", and 2. we find redmine more usable with the HitR (for the project, not only intrigeri's workflow)
‎[11:41:26 AM] ‎segfault‎: currently i don't see a semantic difference
‎[11:41:59 AM] ‎segfault‎: and i don't see why https://labs.riseup.net/code/versions/198 is better than https://labs.riseup.net/code/projects/tails/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&set_filter=1&f%5B%5D=status_id&op%5Bstatus_id%5D=o&f%5B%5D=priority_id&op%5Bpriority_id%5D=%3D&v%5Bpriority_id%5D%5B%5D=6&f%5B%5D=assigned_to_id&op%5Bassigned_to_id%5D=%21*&f%5B%5D=&c%5B%5D=tracker&c%5B%5D=status&c%5B%5D=priority&c%5B%5D=subject&c%5B%5D=author&c%5B%5D=assigned_to&c%5B%5D=updated_on&c%5B%5D=cf_9&group_by=&t%5B%5D=
‎[11:42:05 AM] ‎segfault‎: except that the URL is much shorter :D
‎[11:42:14 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: I think all our current HitR can be sorted between these categories: 1. leftovers of paid deliverables that we expect the contractor to finish some day (e.g. arguably #8690, #8897, #10987, that is "I'll fix this later let's release now"); 2. high prio stuff that could be folded into existing Core work (e.g. #5340, #12146 & #7102 fit well into the last bullet point of the definition of Foundations Team); 3. leftovers of volunteer work we started but never really completed (e.g. #7700); 4. random serious bugs / needed improvements (#5447, #6907)
‎[11:43:04 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: agreed modulo "assignee: none" is buggy. some HitR have an assignee, thankfully :)
‎[11:44:09 AM] ‎segfault‎: intrigeri: ok, but then the priority is still high. why should we have HitR tickets more on our radar than other priority High tickets?
‎[11:44:11 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: in my 4 above categories, I see how (2) can easily be addressed, but we have no good way to address (1), (3) and (4): HitR works to some extent, but not that well, because the underlying problem is deeper / more structural.
‎[11:44:15 AM] ‎sajolida‎: segfault: i would also see this as twisting the meaning of "high priority", for example #10022 is a HitR but it's not "urgent" as such...
‎[11:44:19 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: I agree
‎[11:44:29 AM] ‎‎sajolida‎ has left (Disconnected: closed)
‎[11:44:40 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: good point.
‎[11:44:44 AM] ‎‎sajolida‎ has joined the group chat
‎[11:45:28 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: well, HitR are not urgent anymore, generally they should have been urgent years ago but we failed to handle them so we can't pretend anymore they are urgent, de facto we *can* live with the problems.
‎[11:45:31 AM] ‎segfault‎: ok, so you two agree that not all HitR tickets are actually high priority?
‎[11:46:03 AM] ‎sajolida‎: that's the metaphor behind "Broken Window" and "Hole in the Roof": it's not that urgent and is always postponed for "that time when i'll have no urgent things to do"
‎[11:46:13 AM] ‎segfault‎: so this is more something like "tickets we want to have fixed in the long term, even though it is not urgent"?
‎[11:46:17 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: they are high *importance* but the way I understand priority, it is about timing, and it seems clear that we don't pretend we're gonna fix all HitR *soon*
‎[11:46:27 AM] ‎sajolida‎: right
‎[11:46:30 AM] ‎segfault‎: ok
‎[11:47:31 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: how about we reason about how to handle the 4 categories I've defined above, one after the other?
‎[11:47:39 AM] ‎sajolida‎: and to me they are "important" because they either make our work painful or make it possible for stuff to break badly, and not so much because we think they are very cool ideas
‎[11:47:40 AM] ‎segfault‎: intrigeri: ok
‎[11:47:49 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: ack
‎[11:48:52 AM] ‎sajolida‎: intrigeri: we can try...
‎[11:49:08 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: 1. leftovers of paid deliverables that we expect the contractor to finish some day (e.g. arguably #8690, #8897, #10987, that is "I'll fix this later let's release now")
‎[11:49:26 AM] ‎sajolida‎: the first category was: 1. leftovers of paid deliverables that we expect the contractor to finish some day (e.g. arguably #8690, #8897, #10987, that is "I'll fix this later let's release now");
‎[11:49:31 AM] ‎segfault‎: i think this could be handled by setting the assignee to the contractor and setting priority to high, no?
‎[11:49:37 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: this I think we've stopped doing i.e. we don't pay before we consider the work to be completed and we don't trust ourselves anymore to fix it "later"
‎[11:49:55 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: (one side effect is that we haven't paid some work that was 97% done 1.5y ago, but well)
‎[11:50:16 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: so I think we can reason about these old leftovers, but we don't have to think about new/future ones
‎[11:50:28 AM] ‎sajolida‎: yes, the thing is that not paying someone doesn't get the work done either :)
‎[11:50:48 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: right, but then we could pay someone else with the remaining money.
‎[11:51:01 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: (and we should do it)
‎[11:51:03 AM] ‎segfault‎: then maybe let's skip this category, if it is not really relevant anymore
‎[11:51:06 AM] ‎sajolida‎: yes! that's the mechanism we will try to put in place more often
‎[11:51:14 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: yes.
‎[11:51:16 AM] ‎sajolida‎: segfault: yes
‎[11:51:34 AM] ‎sajolida‎: second category is: 2. high prio stuff that could be folded into existing Core work (e.g. #5340, #12146 & #7102 fit well into the last bullet point of the definition of Foundations Team)
‎[11:51:50 AM] ‎segfault‎: btw, how long do we want this meeting to be?
‎[11:51:54 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: and this category only has tickets of mine, because apparently I'm the only one who blamed himself hard enough to consider it was a big deal to have his delivered stuff not working well enough.
‎[11:52:01 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: ouch, I was still talking about (1).
‎[11:52:16 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: OK, next, then. I'll handle my own backlog somehow we can skip to (2).
‎[11:52:19 AM] ‎sajolida‎: i'm fine going until 11:30 UTC, maybe?
‎[11:52:25 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: same.
‎[11:52:37 AM] ‎segfault‎: ok
‎[11:53:15 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: for (2) I think it's "just" a matter of 0. triaging what we're ready to spend money on; 1. giving the FT enough budget to get these done.
‎[11:53:58 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: and those for which we're not ready to spend money on, well, they can be candidates for roadmap in hope volunteers take them, or whatever, they're not that important apparently then.
‎[11:54:25 AM] ‎segfault‎: ack
‎[11:55:32 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: I bet we actually have more serious stuff to task the FT with than #5447 for example. This will be a good opportunity to revisit the priority/importance of some HitR vs. all our other known issues.
‎[11:55:40 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: :)
‎[11:56:34 AM] ‎sajolida‎: yeah! burn DVD burn!
‎[11:56:51 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: I bet there are similar tickets for e.g. tech writing that could be HitR equally to #5340 for example
‎[11:57:11 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: so yeah, let's just reuse our existing mechanism for flagging things as core work
‎[11:57:14 AM] ‎sajolida‎: oh yes!
‎[11:57:30 AM] ‎segfault‎: ok, continue with 3?
‎[11:57:50 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: wait, sajolida did not comment on my proposal yet
‎[11:58:53 AM] ‎sajolida‎: Which is? "1. Triaging what we're ready to spend money on, 2. Giving core workers enough budget to get these done."?
‎[11:59:07 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: yes, and "let's just reuse our existing mechanism for flagging things as core work"
‎[11:59:19 AM] ‎sajolida‎: i'm fine with that
‎[11:59:23 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: (== blocks: core work YYYYQN)
‎[11:59:38 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: ok, (3) then
‎[11:59:56 AM] ‎intrigeri‎: 3. leftovers of volunteer work we started but never really completed (e.g. #7700)
‎[12:00:04 PM] ‎segfault‎: i can't access #7700
‎[12:00:21 PM] ‎segfault‎: "You are not authorized to access this page."
‎[12:00:22 PM] ‎sajolida‎: segfault: it's the parent of #10022
‎[12:00:27 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: it's about the "distribution mechanism for the revocation certificate of our signing key          "
‎[12:00:33 PM] ‎sajolida‎: the HitR is Feature #10022 <https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/10022>: Have experts review our revocation mechanism of Tails signing key
‎[12:00:38 PM] ‎segfault‎: ah ok
‎[12:00:40 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: right
‎[12:01:01 PM] ‎emmapeel‎: well it is ongoing, there were some reviews
‎[12:01:33 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: emmapeel:  I think we won't triage each ticket now, it's more about "how to handle this class of tickets" IMO
‎[12:02:08 PM] ‎emmapeel‎: okok
‎[12:02:33 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I don't know how to handle such issues, and I'm not sure if we need a dedicated mechanism. Roadmap would work well I think, e.g. "we want to get this done in 2018".
‎[12:02:45 PM] ‎segfault‎: so this is another candidate for "important, but not urgent", right?
‎[12:03:21 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: yes, and roadmap is good for this because it can be in 1.5 years
‎[12:04:11 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: ("2019" is still far away and expresses important but not urgent well, no?)
‎[12:04:39 PM] ‎segfault‎: yes
‎[12:05:14 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: if you want us to slow down, just say the word.
‎[12:05:18 PM] ‎segfault‎: i think putting stuff on the next year's roadmap is another way to say exactly this "important, but not urgent"
‎[12:05:55 PM] ‎sajolida‎: i don't have a solution here but i'm slightly worried about pushing to much stuff in our roadmapping sessions because:
- they are very long already and i sometimes feel like i'd like a bit higher altitude in them: looking less at the little problems of each team but more at the bigger picture
- not everybody is there. some HitR can be tackled by people who are not at the summit (i think that having them during the meeting sometimes lead to fruitful engagement of other people)
‎[12:06:27 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: good points
‎[12:06:46 PM] ‎segfault‎: i agree that the roadmap session is too long and filled up with too many little problems 
‎[12:06:50 PM] ‎sajolida‎: like i don't think that the roadmap is the right place for people to list everything they plan on doing during the year
‎[12:07:01 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: now, I think we have only one example in this category so it should not make the roadmapping session much longer :)
‎[12:07:09 PM] ‎segfault‎: and i agree that it can be useful to look at some important issues without assignee during the meetings
‎[12:07:10 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: agreed
‎[12:07:23 PM] ‎segfault‎: but "important issues without assignee" is not really HitR, is it?
‎[12:07:49 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I'm fine with simply dropping this category by lack of a sufficient data set to be worth / doable to reasoning about.
‎[12:07:59 PM] ‎sajolida‎: intrigeri: nb, i also think we have a problem at identifying HitR and that the list might not be representative of what could be in there
‎[12:08:13 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: sure.
‎[12:08:46 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: note that the per-category process we're going through right now assumes we have no HitR anymore, we're trying to find out how we would handle classes of issues we currently triage as HitR.
‎[12:09:10 PM] ‎segfault‎: yes
‎[12:09:11 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: whatever we come up with for one class of issues or another can work for tickets that are not classified as HitR currently.
‎[12:09:12 PM] ‎sajolida‎: sure
‎[12:10:06 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: so (3) is about "how do we finish things started by volunteers?", essentially. I don't think we have to discuss that today.
‎[12:10:21 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: it's a bit too broad for this discussion IMO
‎[12:10:54 PM] ‎sajolida‎: hmm... i'm not sure i like the phrasing "things started by volunteers"
‎[12:11:24 PM] ‎sajolida‎: for example, to me #10022 is about important work that doesn't fit in any core team
‎[12:11:51 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: right, in this case it's more "things we decided we wanted and then someone did most of the work alone for free, produced something useful, but gave up wrt. the last mile"
‎[12:11:58 PM] ‎sajolida‎: if i remember correctly, before #10022 was HitR, was #7700 itself was HitR (ie. before it was "started")
‎[12:12:22 PM] ‎sajolida‎: sorry: #7700 itself was HitR (ie. before it was "started")
‎[12:12:45 PM] ‎sajolida‎: (actually, it's still HitR)
‎[12:13:21 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: yes, it became a HitR before it was really started.
‎[12:13:58 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (well, no, there was already a proposal)
‎[12:14:32 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: IMO this should somehow go to category (2) i.e. it should be core work, except it does not fit into any of our core team definitions.
‎[12:16:34 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: maybe we "simply" need a new "misc" core work budget line, from which (if we have money of course) we allocate money to specific tasks decided by the project, and during the year anyone can propose a task for it ("IMO this should be core work but it does not fit anywhere, I can do it in X hours and want to be paid, what do you think?").
‎[12:17:15 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: s/misc/Roofer/ :)))
‎[12:18:28 PM] ‎segfault‎: this sounds very hypothetical to me, given that we don't even have enough budget to pay all core work
‎[12:18:51 PM] ‎sajolida‎: segfault: yup, i'm not against this as an idea but i really don't think it will happen next year
‎[12:18:59 PM] ‎segfault‎: we only have 12 minutes left until 12:30
‎[12:19:28 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I agree it won't happen next year but I think my proposal helps us define more clearly what our ideal Core budget should look like.
‎[12:19:54 PM] ‎segfault‎: i would like to take a step back. my understanding of HitR now is that we only use it to indicate that something is important, but not urgent
‎[12:20:07 PM] ‎segfault‎: so we don't want to set priority to high, but still not lose track of the ticket
‎[12:20:16 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (instead of hoping people will do all kinds of things for free merely because it does not fit into any budget line so there's no chance anyone *ever* gets paid for it)
‎[12:20:31 PM] ‎segfault‎: maybe we could solve this problem by adding a new field "importance" or "severity"?
‎[12:21:35 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: I'm _slightly_ concerned that we're getting back to finding a *general* solution to a number of different problems, while we're almost done thinking about each sub-category of problems.
‎[12:21:55 PM] ‎sajolida‎: since we have only 10 minutes left i don't think we'll come with a magical solution now, we could spend some time on the last category and the discussion some next steps
‎[12:22:13 PM] ‎segfault‎: ok, then discuss the last category
‎[12:22:17 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: last category is 4. random serious bugs / needed improvements (#5447, #6907)
‎[12:22:27 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: and I think we basically face the same problem as for (3)
‎[12:23:02 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: so the way I see it, we have at least found a way to handle (1) and (2) i.e. we've reduced the scope of the HitR "problem"
‎[12:23:05 PM] ‎sajolida‎: by random you mean that they don't fit in any core budget line?
‎[12:23:47 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: well, I dunno. I admit caterogy 4 looks like "everything else", sorry.
‎[12:24:31 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: well, actually some of those could fit into Foundations Team, provided enough resources.
‎[12:25:19 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (the FT is supposed to fix important bugs if time allows and the project thinks they are important enough.)
‎[12:25:32 PM] ‎sajolida‎: in category 2 we discussed stuff that could fit in core work. you said "high prio" but let's face it #5340 and #7102 are not high prio :)
‎[12:26:28 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: well, it's not urgent (so not "high prio") but it's a real shame we didn't do it yet.
‎[12:26:59 PM] ‎sajolida‎: so i'm leaning towards segfault's definition of "important but not urgent"
i also like "a real shame we didn't do it yet" :)
‎[12:27:11 PM] ‎sajolida‎: but all this should be triaged and prioritized by core teams, right?
‎[12:27:21 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: would be good
‎[12:27:48 PM] ‎sajolida‎: ignore that but: (maybe we need a Core team field in Redmine...)
‎[12:27:53 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I propose 1. core teams look at the list of HitR and tell which ones they think *they* should tackle; 2. we look at what's left and take a step back as segfault proposed
‎[12:28:20 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (and 1.a: if needed, adjust core team role definition)
‎[12:29:15 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (I'm not 100% happy with this proposal but we have 1 min left)
‎[12:29:37 PM] ‎sajolida‎: i don't think we can lead this discussion to an end today
‎[12:29:42 PM] ‎sajolida‎: so what are the next steps:
‎[12:30:01 PM] ‎sajolida‎: - summarize the proposals we did came up with?
‎[12:30:34 PM] ‎sajolida‎: - and see what's missing?
‎[12:30:37 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: yes, for categories (1) and (2) at least. for the other ones we have ideas but no real proposal
‎[12:30:40 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: yes
‎[12:30:46 PM] ‎segfault‎: i don't think the solution to HitR should be to assign all of them to the core team
‎[12:30:59 PM] ‎sajolida‎: segfault: agreed!
‎[12:31:13 PM] ‎segfault‎: ok, maybe i misundertood the proposal
‎[12:31:30 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sure! I meant →core helps *reduce* the scope of the problem that'll be left to solve.
‎[12:31:31 PM] ‎sajolida‎: i'd also like to have our dear Ticket Gardener involved in this discussion as we should likely update her role
‎[12:31:55 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (I did not mean →core would get rid of all HitR)
‎[12:32:00 PM] ‎segfault‎: ok
‎[12:32:10 PM] ‎sajolida‎: nb: i'm also fine to continue the meeting longer since you're more into going overtime than postponing :)
‎[12:32:53 PM] ‎segfault‎: would be ok for me, but then i would need to get a snack (3min afk maybe)
‎[12:33:15 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I can keep going a little more, say until 1pm but I need a very short break now too)
‎[12:33:16 PM] ‎segfault‎: but intrigeri is on his weekend IIUC
‎[12:33:30 PM] ‎segfault‎: ok, brb then
‎[12:33:37 PM] ‎sajolida‎: ok
‎[12:37:34 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: back
‎[12:37:35 PM] ‎segfault‎: re
‎[12:37:42 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: wow, synchro!
‎[12:37:46 PM] ‎segfault‎: :D
‎[12:38:30 PM] ‎segfault‎: so, where do we continue?
‎[12:40:14 PM] ‎sajolida‎: .
‎[12:41:17 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: if I take a step back I'd say we have two big subsets actually among these things we really ought to do otherwise we suck: those that should be done *instead* of other stuff => either we have volunteers (via roadmap or some other process) or we don't and then we need to pay people to prioritize them == core work. and things we ought to do but they're less important/urgent than what's on our roadmap or what we're paying people for. I think we have good ideas above to deal with the 1st category, and then the HitR problem becomes limited to the 2nd one, that may be easier to cope with.
‎[12:42:43 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: *if* we agree on this next steps are to ask the project what we think is in the 1st category, ask core teams what they think, include this into our ideal budget; and then we can come back here and solve the remaining problem (e.g. another meeting)
‎[12:43:54 PM] ‎segfault‎: ok
‎[12:44:46 PM] ‎sajolida‎: still processing the 6 lines blob
‎[12:46:26 PM] ‎sajolida‎: what do you mean by "that should be done *instead* of other stuff", any example?
‎[12:47:02 PM] ‎sajolida‎: it is "i choose option A over option B" or "i choose to do only A because i don't have enough time to do A + B"?
‎[12:48:39 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: for example, recently I've fixed our memory erasure feature, we've increased the size of our system partition, we've switched to a less buggy & better integrated on-screen keyboard. it might have been relevant to ask ourselves if any of our current HitR was more important/urgent and should have been done instead of one of those.
‎[12:49:11 PM] ‎sajolida‎: "either we have volunteers": it is "volunteers" as in "volunteer work" or as in "assignee"?
‎[12:49:13 PM] ‎segfault‎: again, i think a "Severity" field would help for this
‎[12:49:29 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: and I have #12460 on my plate and wonder if it's really more important/urgent than some of our HitR
‎[12:50:21 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: I'm not sure I understand your proposal right. Can you explain how this would be used in terms of Redmine view & process?
‎[12:50:31 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: volunteer work
‎[12:51:17 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: (adding more metadata is only useful if we have good ways to set it & to build useful views on top of it :)
‎[12:52:30 PM] ‎sajolida‎: so your first category is "changes and updates" and your second category is "new things" (roughly!)
‎[12:53:13 PM] ‎segfault‎: i think we use HitR currently for tickets which are important, but not urgent. if we used a "Severity"/"Importance" field instead, we could 1. look at important issues without assignee during the monthly meetings, 2. choose the most important ticket to work on (i.e. choose A over B), 3. choose which tickets should be core work
‎[12:53:33 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: I'm sorry I have no idea how you can possibly have understood my categories this way :/
‎[12:54:29 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: OK, I see. And urgent is always higher prio than "important but not urgent", right?
‎[12:54:40 PM] ‎sajolida‎: then i think i need example of stuff in your second category
‎[12:54:45 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: sure
‎[12:55:47 PM] ‎segfault‎: intrigeri: yes, at least for core team i guess
‎[12:56:12 PM] ‎segfault‎: volunteers could also use the "importance" field for deciding what to work on
‎[12:56:40 PM] ‎sajolida‎: meta: we have 5 minutes left to 12:00 and then i'll really want to go do more urgent stuff
i don't think we're come up with a solution now, so if you want my help for the follow ups i'd like to clarify some next steps
‎[12:57:00 PM] ‎segfault‎: maybe that makes no sense, i can't really concentrate anymore, i need to get some breakfast
‎[12:57:02 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: for example, I could argue that #12146 should be done instead of other things, e.g. by the FT (that's my 1st category); and I could argue that #7102 can wait until the RNG seed thing is sorted out.
‎[12:57:12 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (i.e. 2nd category)
‎[12:58:34 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: well, so it seems my attempt at a proposal that could hopefully draw clear next steps failed. sorry it took all this time and now we don't know what the next steps are.
‎[12:59:54 PM] ‎segfault‎: i think we should try really doing the next meeting via mumble
‎[01:00:23 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I have nothing better to propose in terms of next steps, so the only other thing I can think of is: schedule another meeting & ensure the minutes capture this discussion (+ save full log perhaps)
‎[01:01:46 PM] ‎segfault‎: ok
‎[01:02:28 PM] ‎segfault‎: "ensure the minutes capture this discussion" - how do we do that?
‎[01:02:36 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: and meta: I've joined because I care about HitR and since I was mostly opposed to dropping it from the monthly meeting, I feel the need to ensure we keep tracking these problems somehow. but I'm not super enthusiastic about spending hours fixing a problem while I found our previous solution good enough for the time being. I'll join the next meeting anyway but I really don't want to lead this process.
‎[01:02:43 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: segfault: I think sajolida said he was taking notes.
‎[01:02:47 PM] ‎segfault‎: ah ok
‎[01:03:09 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (maybe I dreamt)
‎[01:03:23 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (no, I did not dream)
‎[01:03:53 PM] ‎sajolida‎: i said i was taking notes but seeing how complex the whole thing blew up, i'm withdrawing my offer
‎[01:04:10 PM] ‎sajolida‎: i think we should keep the full logs of the discussion
‎[01:04:14 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: agreed.
‎[01:04:26 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: good enough if we have no notes.
‎[01:04:31 PM] ‎sajolida‎: maybe try to extract, if any, some concrete proposals to fix part of the problem
‎[01:04:46 PM] ‎sajolida‎: drop the HitR point of the monthly meeting for now
‎[01:05:03 PM] ‎sajolida‎: keep the metadata in Redmine
‎[01:05:24 PM] ‎sajolida‎: wait until we're more inspired
‎[01:06:04 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: wow
‎[01:06:44 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I see quite a few concrete proposals above and I felt like we were quite inspired. I'm sad you seem to have experienced this very differently :(
‎[01:07:36 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: I'm not happy with dropping this from the monthly meeting before we have a better solution but I won't insist: I acknowledge there's a collective consensus about "this point sucks & is depressing so we should drop it" and I'll comply.
‎[01:08:19 PM] ‎segfault‎: joining the meta: i'm not sure it makes sense for me to continue discussing HitR, because I never used the HitR view, except in the monthly meetings, and there I never really understood what the category means. And I also don't use any other redmine views (except for "my page"), and I feel like I don't have enough experience with the processes that require different redmine views
‎[01:08:30 PM] ‎sajolida‎: full ack on the concrete proposals → i'm proposing to extract and implement these
but not everything will be solved by them
‎[01:08:30 PM] ‎emmapeel‎: maybe a randomizer HitR tailsbot script
‎[01:08:44 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: OK!
‎[01:09:16 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: sajolida: will you save the log?
‎[01:10:15 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: (then I'm out)
‎[01:10:36 PM] ‎segfault‎: intrigeri: see you, enjoy the weekend!
[01:11:20 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: saved the log locally, just in case.
‎[01:11:21 PM] ‎intrigeri‎: bye
‎[01:11:22 PM] ‎sajolida‎: in my next steps, the only thing i proposed to downgrade from the current situation was the HitR in the monthly meeting, intrigeri disagrees with that, and since we didn't tackle the whole problem space maybe we can probably live with keeping that point in the agenda
‎[01:11:42 PM] ‎‎intrigeri‎ has left (Stream reset by peer)
‎[01:11:51 PM] ‎sajolida‎: we still need someone to extract the contract proposals from today's discussion