15:02:12 <bcotton> #startmeeting Prioritized bugs and issues
15:02:12 <zodbot> Meeting started Wed Apr 22 15:02:12 2020 UTC.
15:02:12 <zodbot> This meeting is logged and archived in a public location.
15:02:12 <zodbot> The chair is bcotton. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot.
15:02:12 <zodbot> Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic.
15:02:12 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
15:02:13 <bcotton> #meetingname Fedora Prioritized bugs and issues
15:02:13 <zodbot> The meeting name has been set to 'fedora_prioritized_bugs_and_issues'
15:02:19 <bcotton> #topic Purpose of this meeting
15:02:20 <bcotton> #info The purpose of this process is to help with processing backlog of bugs and issues found during the development, verification and use of Fedora distribution.
15:02:22 <bcotton> #info The main goal is to raise visibility of bugs and issues to help  contributors focus on the most important issues.
15:02:23 <bcotton> #link https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/prioritized_bugs/#_process_description
15:02:25 <bcotton> #topic Roll Call
15:06:11 <mattdm> i am here, with the right name
15:07:14 <bcotton> #chair mattdm
15:07:14 <zodbot> Current chairs: bcotton mattdm
15:07:41 <bcotton> alright, let's get this party started
15:07:53 <bcotton> #topic Nominated bugs
15:07:55 <bcotton> #info 0 nominated bugs
15:07:56 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=OP&list_id=10871664&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora_prioritized_bug%3F
15:07:58 <bcotton> yay!
15:08:03 <bcotton> #topic Accepted bugs
15:08:04 <bcotton> #info 2 accepted bugs
15:08:06 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=OP&list_id=10871665&o1=substring&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora_prioritized_bug%2B
15:08:12 <bcotton> #topic Authentication dialog for samba printer provides no input fields
15:08:13 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1715900
15:08:15 <bcotton> #info Accepted as a Prioritized Bug on 2020-02-12
15:08:16 <bcotton> #info update FEDORA-2020-a1eacf6355 is a proposed fix, waiting for reporters to verify
15:08:18 <bcotton> one reporter can't verify because they no longer have access to the printer
15:08:33 <bcotton> i've NEEDINFO'ed the people who said the had this problem
15:08:47 <bcotton> one of them can't get to the office to test
15:09:13 <bcotton> i figure if by next meeting we don't hear one way or the other, we call it good done from our perspective?
15:09:33 <mattdm> yeah. by then we should either hear about it from someone else or not :)
15:10:03 <bcotton> #agreed If there are no updates on the status of this bug by the next meeting, we'll consider it fixed for our purposes
15:10:45 <bcotton> which raises a housekeeping question. do we remove the flag? do we close the bug? do we just rely on me removing it from the agenda? idk what the right answer is, but we don't have to solve it now
15:11:03 <bcotton> im leaning toward closing the bug if the assignee doesn't object
15:11:20 <bcotton> bugs can always be reopened
15:11:34 <mattdm> yeah that sounds godo
15:12:14 <mattdm> good
15:12:24 <bcotton> #topic Multiple packages have broken dependencies due to PostgreSQL 12
15:12:26 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1811800
15:12:27 <bcotton> #info Accepted as a Prioritized Bug on 2020-03-11
15:12:29 <bcotton> #info Bugs opened for the remaining two pacakges
15:12:35 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825325
15:12:36 <bcotton> #info timescaledb has an update in testing
15:12:38 <bcotton> #link https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1825327
15:12:39 <bcotton> #info pgRouting has a PR filed upstream
15:13:09 <bcotton> i don't think there's much to do here. i did a little legwork and that got things moving along
15:13:12 <mattdm> I think we can mark it as solved from a priorities perspective?
15:13:14 <mattdm> bcotton++
15:13:32 <mhroncok> o/
15:13:47 <mattdm> Maybe FESCo and the maintainer can work towards a plan for next release so it doesn't happen again?
15:13:49 <mattdm> mhroncok: go!
15:14:02 <mhroncok> mattdm: sorry, that was "hi"
15:14:06 <mattdm> (actually in this meeting feel from to just jump in without needing to raise a hand. it's not busy)
15:14:06 <mhroncok> sorry for being late
15:14:08 <mattdm> OH
15:14:10 <mattdm> hi!
15:14:13 <mattdm> :)
15:14:13 <bcotton> welcome, mhroncok
15:14:23 <bcotton> i'm glad your here, i have something for you in a moment
15:14:32 <bcotton> but first!
15:14:34 <bcotton> #topic Prioritized bugs fixed from last meeting
15:14:34 <mattdm> mhroncok: any opinion on the above?
15:14:35 <bcotton> Just a quick review to remind ourself that this process works sometimes
15:14:41 <bcotton> #topic Modules make eclipse non-installable
15:14:41 <mhroncok> mattdm: from FESCo stand point, I think the program manager should not accept changes as CLOSED in this state :D
15:14:42 <bcotton> #lin https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1800528
15:14:44 <bcotton> #info update FEDORA-MODULAR-2020-885927b4dc fixed it
15:15:04 <mhroncok> solved, after couple months
15:15:06 <bcotton> mhroncok: for sure, the pgm needs to step up :-)
15:15:20 <bcotton> mhroncok++ for lighting the fire on 1800528
15:15:20 <mhroncok> bcotton: do you know him?
15:15:24 <bcotton> mhroncok: we've met
15:15:52 <bcotton> #topic Improving the process
15:15:53 <bcotton> #link https://pagure.io/fedora-pgm/pgm_docs/c/4efc186e9ef585c13561b640e6c55aa5aec41d36?branch=prioritized_bugs_actions
15:16:00 <bcotton> speaking of mhroncok lighting fires!
15:16:18 <bcotton> there wasn't really a defined process for what happens after a bug was accepted
15:16:26 <bcotton> which sometimes lead to thigns getting ignored
15:16:34 <bcotton> that's the opposite of prioritized
15:16:43 <mattdm> True.
15:16:46 <mhroncok> :D
15:17:05 <mattdm> I mean, ideally, I'd have an army of minions who I could order to jump into action
15:17:13 <mattdm> Turns out, I am Not the Pope.
15:17:16 <bcotton> so after some conversation with mhroncok, i developed some More Like Guidelines that will guide me (and future mes) and make expectations on what being a prioritized bug *means*
15:17:17 <mattdm> h/t adamw
15:17:28 <bcotton> #agreed Mattdm is a Cardinal, at best
15:18:00 <bcotton> so the link i #linked is what i came up with. i'd like feedback before i merge it to master
15:18:07 * mhroncok looks
15:18:15 * mattdm is reading
15:18:35 <bcotton> obviously it's not the final word, we can adjust as needed and we can treat bugs as exceptional when needed, but it at least lays out a baseline
15:19:14 <mhroncok> bcotton: the three weeks is bloody long
15:19:23 <mattdm> I think we should add "reach out to people outside of bugzilla" between "mark in bugzilla" and "go to a manager"
15:19:26 <mattdm> also that.
15:19:36 <mattdm> adding that step will solve both of those problems
15:19:41 <bcotton> worksforme
15:19:44 <mhroncok> bcotton: you could finish 1.5 nonrespnsive maintainer processes in 3 weeks
15:19:58 <mattdm> There exist people who are perfectly awesome human beings but who cannot keep up with bugzilla
15:20:02 <bcotton> the three weeks was intended to line it up with the meeting cadence without being super onerous
15:20:15 * mhroncok likes the note
15:20:33 <bcotton> and also respecting the fact that some of the folks involved may be volunteers and we want to be respectful of that
15:20:44 <mhroncok> sure, letting people kwno outside bz is sometimes very important stpe
15:20:48 <mattdm> as a practical matter, we often agree to do that first contact as part of the initial accepting of the bug or the next review
15:21:44 <bcotton> so i'll add a "contact outside bz" step 1 week after the no visible progress step
15:21:53 <bcotton> so 2 weeks after it's accepted, give or take
15:22:26 <bcotton> and we'll leave the "i'm telling the teacher!" at accept +4w
15:22:32 <mhroncok> After ~1 weeks with no visible progress or acknowledgement, the FPgM marks the assignee as NEEDINFO in Bugzilla and contacts the maintainer via e-mail
15:22:37 <mattdm> lol wworks for me
15:23:33 <mattdm> As a point of note, "contacting the manager" isn't meant to be a "this person is being bad" step. It is a "hey, can you make sure your team has resources to look at this problem that Fedora has identified as a priority?"
15:23:40 <mhroncok> an idea I just got, not sure if good
15:24:00 <mattdm> because maybe the assignee isn't even the right person, or maybe they're overwhelmed, or maybe the group has some other deadline we'renot aaware of
15:24:05 <bcotton> mhroncok: i'd rather have them as separate steps to give a bit of a ladder, but i'm open to argument about combining them
15:24:09 <mhroncok> should we say that fixing a prirotizied bug as a provenpackager is always considered a legitimate use of the provenpackager powers?
15:24:14 <bcotton> mattdm: good point, i'll add a note to that effect, too
15:25:09 <mhroncok> obviously only after it has been prirotized for some tiem and the maintainer actually got a chance to see it
15:25:20 <bcotton> mhroncok: we could. although if we're saying we'll do that, it it implies that it is legitimate. or that we're jerks and are asking people to do things they shouldn't :-D
15:25:35 <mhroncok> :D
15:25:48 <mhroncok> bcotton: ok, don't put the jerk rule in there
15:26:33 <bcotton> if it becomes a problem, we can definitely be explicit about it
15:27:50 <bcotton> okay, so
15:28:24 <bcotton> proposed #agreed we will add an additional step of contacting the assignee outside of Bugzilla ~1 week after NEEDINFO is set
15:28:33 <bcotton> we okay with that?
15:28:37 <mattdm> This generally seems good. Ben, thank you for your dedication to have documented processes instead of making things up as we go along.
15:28:46 <mattdm> +1
15:29:17 <mhroncok> bcotton++
15:29:30 <bcotton> #agreed we will add an additional step of contacting the assignee outside of Bugzilla ~1 week after NEEDINFO is set
15:30:00 <bcotton> #agreed we will add an explanation that the escalation step is not "this person is being bad" step. It is a "hey, can you make sure your team has resources to look at this problem that Fedora has identified as a priority?"
15:30:10 <bcotton> (didn't think it was worth doing a proposed for that one)
15:30:21 <mattdm> yeah
15:30:33 <bcotton> #action bcotton to implement the proposed changes and merge
15:30:54 <bcotton> any other suggestions?
15:31:33 <mhroncok> proposed #action bcotton to fix all the prioritized bugz
15:31:40 <bcotton> nack
15:31:54 <mhroncok> :)
15:32:14 <mattdm> :)
15:32:29 <bcotton> #topic Next meeting
15:32:30 <bcotton> #info We will meet again on 6 May at 1500 UTC in #fedora-meeting
15:32:52 <bcotton> okay, i think that's all we need to do? anything else to discuss?
15:33:25 <mattdm> I don't have anything.
15:33:27 <mattdm> Thanks Ben!
15:33:31 <mattdm> bcotton++
15:34:02 <mhroncok> bcotton: will you have 5 minutes after the meeting?
15:34:06 <bcotton> mhroncok: sure thing
15:34:10 <mhroncok> not this meeting related
15:34:16 <bcotton> thanks mhroncok and mattdm!
15:34:17 <mhroncok> bcotton: thnaks, will dm you
15:34:21 <bcotton> #endmeeting