On 2018-09-10 06:38:11 -0600 (-0600), Mohammed Naser wrote: > I think something we should take into consideration is *what* you > consider health because the way we’ve gone about it over health > checks is not something that can become a toolkit because it was > more of question asking, etc [...]
I was going to follow up with something similar. It's not as if the TC has a toolkit of any sort at this point to come up with the information we're assembling in the health tracker either. It's built up from interviewing PTLs, reading meeting logs, looking at the changes which merge to teams' various deliverable repositories, asking around as to whether they've missed important deadlines such as release milestones (depending on what release models they follow) or PTL nominations, looking over cycle goals to see how far along they are, and so on. Extremely time-consuming which is why it's taken us most of a release cycle and we still haven't finished a first pass. Assembling some of this information might be automatable if we make adjustments to how the data/processes on which it's based are maintained, but at this point we're not even sure which ones are problem indicators at all and are just trying to provide the clearest picture we can. If we come up with a detailed checklist and some of the checks on that list can be automated in some way, that seems like a good thing. However, the original data should be publicly accessible so I don't see why it needs to be members of the technical committee who write the software to collect that. -- Jeremy Stanley
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
