launchpad development
ReviewerMeeting20101020
summary
- Proposal for every reviewer to start doing a UI review was not favorably received in either meeting and placed on a horizontal, flat surface.
logs
ameu
[15:00] <rockstar> #startmeeting [15:00] <MootBot> rockstar, There is already a meeting in progress. [15:01] <rockstar> Why is there already a meeting in progress? [15:01] <rockstar> #endmeeting [15:01] <rockstar> #startmeeting [15:01] <MootBot> rockstar, There is already a meeting in progress. [15:01] <gary_poster> heh [15:01] <rockstar> Alright, so MootBot sucks. [15:01] <sinzui> I think someone need to pull HAL's memory [15:02] <rockstar> Hi everyone. I'm chairing today's reviewer's meeting since bac is travelling the world this week. [15:02] <rockstar> Who's here? [15:02] <adeuring1> me [15:02] <gary_poster> me [15:02] <henninge> ,e [15:02] <sinzui> me [15:02] <henninge> me, even === adeuring1 is now known as adeuring [15:02] <abentley> me [15:02] <salgado> me [15:03] <rockstar> 6 people huh? [15:03] <gary_poster> I pinged leonardr and mars [15:03] <abentley> rockstar: I can pretend to be two people, if you like. [15:03] <leonardr> me [15:03] <sinzui> EdwinGrubbs, meeting? [15:03] <allenap> me [15:03] <rockstar> abentley, if you were on another team, that might help. As it stands, you're usually the only code guy here anyway. :) [15:04] <gary_poster> ...and there were eight... [15:04] <deryck> me [15:04] <flacoste> me [15:04] <not-abentley> me [15:04] <mars> me [15:04] <gary_poster> heh [15:04] <rockstar> Alright, let's not sit and wait for the folks who couldn't remember the meeting that happens at the same time every week. [15:05] <rockstar> Here's the past actions from last week [15:05] <rockstar> Sinzui to investigate making lint check for the Storm 'in' gotcha [15:05] <rockstar> HenningE to add a note to the PSG about the use of any [15:05] <sinzui> No progress yet [15:05] <rockstar> I suspect bac didn't finish that past action, but that henninge knows what it ends with. [15:05] <henninge> I did that [15:06] <rockstar> bac to work with mars regarding a slow introduction of new reviewer points regarding the ArchitectureGuide. (undone) [15:06] <jelmer> me [15:06] <rockstar> henninge, hooray! You get a gold star. [15:06] <henninge> rockstar: it's about the "any" function ;-) [15:06] <rockstar> henninge, ah, okay. Well, I guess it was a finished statement. :) [15:07] <rockstar> Okay, we're 1 for 3 on finishing items. [15:07] <rockstar> Mentat report! [15:07] <rockstar> So, I talked with bac and sinzui about this, but I think it's high time henninge graduates as a UI reviewer. [15:08] <rockstar> salgado, how's mentat life? [15:08] * henninge is excited! [15:08] <salgado> going fine so far [15:09] <rockstar> Okay. I guess that's it for that part of the agenda. [15:09] <rockstar> New items [15:09] <rockstar> Make all reviewers a UI mentat similar to the way we do javascript reviews. (lifeless) [15:10] <abentley> rockstar: do not want. [15:10] <rockstar> So, this is not new. It has been entirely acceptable to get UI reviews from two non-UI reviewers. It's been that way since the 3.0 work. [15:11] <rockstar> It's just a PITA to get wrangle more people to do UI reviews. [15:11] <rockstar> abentley, I am curious why you don't want to be a UI reviewer. [15:11] <mars> rockstar, do, as in, become a reviewer? [15:11] <jelmer> rockstar: As I understand it it's ok to get two UI reviews from UI mentats, not necessarily from non-UI reviewers. [15:11] <sinzui> Its a PITA to get people who want to become a full UI reviewer [15:11] <sinzui> there isnt a queue for this [15:11] <rockstar> sinzui, yes, that's true too. [15:12] <abentley> rockstar: I don't want to go through another training process, I don't want to have to do more reviews. [15:12] <sinzui> We supposed that the JS/UI team would all becomes reviewers. Most scared to the four winds when the meeting was abandoned [15:12] <rockstar> jelmer, we've kinda strayed from it, but during the 3.0 work, we needed UI reviews A LOT, and so everyone became a "mentat" [15:12] <abentley> rockstar: I don't think that I have especially good visual design skills. [15:12] <rockstar> sinzui, they were scaring that way before the meeting was abandoned. [15:13] <rockstar> abentley, and you have no desire to develop good visual design skills? [15:13] <jelmer> rockstar: I didn't know that, thanks. [15:13] <abentley> rockstar: there are many things more important to me than that. [15:13] <mars> sounds fair [15:13] <sinzui> abentley, While I do not know your skills, I have raised a similar point with beuno. Most of use were hired for code design skills, not UI design [15:13] <rockstar> Anyone else have opinions? I can bring these thoughts up in the AsiaPac meeting as well. [15:14] <mars> rockstar, the way I do it now is I say "You need a UI review - as rockstar or sinzui" [15:14] <mars> rockstar, will that process change? [15:14] <mars> how will people's expectations for UI reviews change? [15:15] <rockstar> mars, yeah, that's a good question. [15:15] <mars> how will the way they ask for them change, and will they expect something different from their reviewer in return? [15:15] <rockstar> The 3.0 UI still wasn't consistent. The mentat/mentee process makes it so that we at least get a *ahem* "trickle down" affect. [15:15] <mars> different from their currently-code-only reviewer [15:16] <mars> rockstar, so you are asking, if everyone became a UI mentee, would quality suffer? [15:17] <mars> since the current process is a self-selecting one [15:17] <rockstar> mars, I'm not asking anything. I'm "facilitating." [15:17] <gary_poster> :-) [15:17] <sinzui> mars, 3.0 did suffer by the 2-person-yes rule [15:18] <sinzui> We landed dozens of pages without breadcrumbs and we did not discover that until weeks later [15:19] <sinzui> I favour 2-person approval, but I think we still need some review to ensure we are not codifying convention as rules [15:19] <mars> rockstar, do you know what lifeless' goal was in proposing this? [15:20] <rockstar> mars, I think he wants every reviewer to be able to do any review. [15:21] <rockstar> I started to propose a similar javascript review process, but I still don't feel like we, as a team, have a good understanding of javascript, so I backed off. [15:21] <mars> ok, so [15:21] <gary_poster> well, I assume he wants to get a higher throughput on our landing process [15:21] <gary_poster> and guesses that this would help [15:21] <rockstar> gary_poster, yeah, exactly. [15:21] <mars> right [15:21] <rockstar> Especially since there are no antipodean UI reviewers currently. [15:21] <henninge> but will it help our UI quality? [15:21] <gary_poster> ah, that's a big deal [15:21] <sinzui> I do not think every engineer can be a UI reviewer. [15:22] <mars> so it is just a way to do a light check-up, and defer the "qualified" review until later [15:22] <mars> and you can land in the meantime [15:22] <gary_poster> "can be" is a big statement, but I agree with sinzui's sentiment, if not the wording [15:23] <deryck> if not for abilities as much as lack of desire to learn ;) [15:23] <rockstar> Alright, I'll take this discussion to the AsiaPac meeting and see what happens. [15:23] <gary_poster> right deryck :-) [15:23] <rockstar> Peanut gallery, for anyone who wishes to throw peanuts. [15:24] * gary_poster eats a peanut instead [15:24] <henninge> Are we on 2.6. now or not? [15:24] <mars> no [15:24] <gary_poster> I'll ask the losas about the pqm machine [15:24] <gary_poster> that's the last hold out [15:25] <rockstar> Awesome. [15:25] <rockstar> Anything else? [15:25] <rockstar> 5 [15:25] <rockstar> 4 [15:25] <rockstar> 3 [15:25] <bigjools> 6 [15:25] <rockstar> 2 [15:25] <rockstar> 1 [15:25] <henninge> 7? [15:25] <rockstar> Okay, that's a wrap. Thanks for coming everyone! [15:25] <mars> thanks rockstar [15:25] <henninge> rockstar: Thank you! [15:25] <jelmer> thanks Paul [15:26] <gary_poster> thank you
asiapac
01:03] <rockstar> thumper, lifeless, wgrant, reviewer's meeting? [01:04] <StevenK> Not even me ... :-( [01:05] <rockstar> StevenK, I just grabbed a handful of names. [01:05] <thumper> here [01:05] <thumper> just [01:06] <thumper> rockstar: I think that bac can't make it today [01:06] <thumper> I saw the wiki page updated with an apology [01:06] <rockstar> thumper, yeah, I'm chairing both meetings today. [01:06] <thumper> ok [01:06] <rockstar> Except Mootbot is stupid, so we don't get Mootbot for the meeting. [01:07] <rockstar> Okay, so I took lifeless's proposal to make everyone a UI reviewer to the AMEU meeting this morning. [01:07] <thumper> rockstar: why not? [01:08] <rockstar> It was met with weeping and wailing, and nashing of teeth. [01:08] <rockstar> #startmeeting [01:08] <MootBot> rockstar, There is already a meeting in progress. [01:08] <rockstar> ^^ That's why. [01:08] <thumper> heh [01:08] <thumper> ok [01:09] <rockstar> Many reviewers don't WANT to be UI reviewers as well, and many feel like we need to get a better understanding of what "good UI" is before new people are reviewers. [01:09] <thumper> I agree with that [01:10] <rockstar> Anyone else want to chime in? StevenK maybe? [01:10] <StevenK> I also agree with that [01:10] <rockstar> Okay, so the motion is basically tabled for now then. [01:11] <thumper> s/tabled/floored/ [01:11] <thumper> :) [01:11] <rockstar> :) [01:11] <rockstar> That's it from the AMEU meeting. Anyone have anything here? [01:12] <StevenK> Nope [01:12] <thumper> nope [01:13] <rockstar> Alright. Great meeting. [01:13] * rockstar wanders off to take a shower and not smell terrible anymore.
