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.