Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- github_exp_2021_feedback [2021/02/24 21:58]
sginoza
+++ github_exp_2021_feedback [2021/05/18 14:30]
sginoza
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Please see [[github_auth48_experiment]] for context.
+==== Feedback from Justin Uberti (author, RFC 8829) ====
+<code>
+Summary:
+This was the first time I've had such a long document go through the AUTH48 process, but from my perspective things worked much better than they would have using email.
+There were literally almost 100 separate changes to the text during AUTH48 (not sure if this is typical or not for this size of document). Being able to track each of these individually, set the appropriate status for each issue, distribute the work across the authoring team and Jean, bring people in to comment on specific issues, and finally review proposed changes with full diffs and ability to easily discuss the diffs - each of these was a significant efficiency improvement from my perspective. However, of all of these, the separate tracking for each issue (rather than a single ginormous email) was the biggest improvement IMO.
+In the end I felt that we were able to resolve all ~100 issues that were raised as part of AUTH48 completely and improve the document's accuracy and readability as a result.
+Here's what specifically worked well:
+) I wrote some scripting to parse the initial auth48 mail and turn that into ~60 separate github issues. This let each issue easily be discussed independently.
+) I triaged the issues, and those that seemed pretty straightforward I marked as 'editor-ready' and assigned to Jean, adding any necessary comments to the specific issue.
+) Those that weren't straightforward were assigned to members of the authoring team to track down the right solution, at which point they were then assigned as in 2).
+) When new questions came up, the editors or Jean would file new Github issues.
+) To address the issues assigned to her, Jean would create pull requests with her proposed changes, tagging the issues that the pull request was addressing.
+) I would review the pull request and either send comments back to Jean for further changes (through the pull request review tool) or merge the PR into the document.
+) When the PR was merged, the relevant issues were then closed, allowing us to easily track our progress via the size of the issues list.
+) In cases where the authoring team couldn't figure out a solution, we pulled relevant people (e.g., Adam Roach) into discussions to figure out a solution.
+Here's what could have worked better:
+a) as noted in 1) above, I had to write some Python to parse the email and call the Github API to create the issues. It would be better to have a tool that would let the RFC Editor directly create these issues, rather than trying to serialize to/from email.
+b) we worked on a parallel branch to the main document, meaning that the main branch was frozen at jsep-24, and then a separate branch 'rfced' had the RFC Editor's version of the document, with all proposed changes and editor comments. This approach, while it avoided changing the 'master' branch with anything that wasn't fully vetted, ended up causing confusion. Working directly against master would have been easier.
+c) the saga of #843 is a long and complicated story, but I think this issue is largely separate from the GitHub experiment. Neither the JSEP nor BUNDLE editors fully understood the conflict until it was too late, and a short meeting back in 2018 would probably have avoided the issue.
+You are welcome to add my feedback to the experiment page - happy to provide more details as needed.
+Justin
+</code>
 ==== Feedback from RFC Editor (regarding RFC 8829) ====

RSE Wiki Archive

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools