More team members

[setharnold]

It seems our review workload may grow beyond our abilities to review in a timely manner. Should we have more team members? How do we add more?

[setharnold]

This was discussed at a MIR team meeting 2023-06-20 and we came to the conclusion that there's no pressing need to define a process. There was also a reference to a conversation going on in the technical board mail list along very similar lines: how do we add people to important teams.

The email thread in question:

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2023-June/002741.html

Key Ubuntu teams should have an open process for new members
Sebastien Bacher seb128 at ubuntu.com
Tue Jun 13 17:11:15 UTC 2023

The conversation:

Tue 20 14:44:07 <cpaelzer> https://github.com/canonical/ubuntu-mir/issues/24
Tue 20 14:44:23 <cpaelzer> on this, while we are all busy - I do not yet see a real shortage
Tue 20 14:44:32 <cpaelzer> we generally get things adressed in a timely manner
Tue 20 14:45:09 <cpaelzer> and the thought of more work is mostly around re-reviews which we already throttled by suggesting to fill into a constant 1-per-week load
Tue 20 14:45:12 <cpaelzer> so that would be fine
Tue 20 14:45:35 <cpaelzer> furthermore the team composition is meant to be a bit "one of each" for foundation, desktop, server, seg, ...
Tue 20 14:45:41 <cpaelzer> so adding would be ... duplicating?
Tue 20 14:45:46 <cpaelzer> I see no need for either yet
Tue 20 14:46:04 <cpaelzer> the real question in there - for now - I think is "How do we add more?"
Tue 20 14:46:06 <cpaelzer> this isn't defined
Tue 20 14:46:18 <cpaelzer> so far it has been a team discussion and team decision
Tue 20 14:46:33 <cpaelzer> this isn't a place you'd "apply" for unless you got pushed that way by a manager right?
Tue 20 14:46:53 <didrocks> yes, it’s mostly cooptation, and a lot of ubuntu teams are like this
Tue 20 14:47:09 <sarnold> or just sort of volunteered by team mates? :) (hello eslerm, dviererbe :)
Tue 20 14:47:20 <cpaelzer> I know that generally such a question "How do we add more?" in a similar "weakly defined" way is being worked on. As others like SRU and archive admins are like it
Tue 20 14:47:34 <cpaelzer> yes you might be pulled in like eslerm and dviererbe
Tue 20 14:47:52 <slyon> I think I saw a similar discussion on the TB mailing list..
Tue 20 14:47:56 <cpaelzer> but remember that in theory they are good friends but no members, if it ever comes to voting and qorum and such
Tue 20 14:48:02 <cpaelzer> slyon: yes that is what i mean
Tue 20 14:48:08 <cpaelzer> let them sort it out for an example team
Tue 20 14:48:11 <slyon> that is more about Ubuntu, which MIR is not necessarily part of (this is more of Canonical), but we could use the same process, once defined
Tue 20 14:48:18 <cpaelzer> if there is a best practice out of that we might juts pick it up
Tue 20 14:48:28 <cpaelzer> is that a sufficien state for now sarnold?
Tue 20 14:48:37 <sarnold> we've had a few very small meetings, that raised the question.. and if we intend to get through the 2300-ish packages in main in a decade, we might need more help?
Tue 20 14:49:17 <cpaelzer> sarnold: I'd want to bother about that if/once we ever conclude on really being able to do re-reviews as a company
Tue 20 14:49:33 <cpaelzer> we will start slow with the capacity we have, see if the teams can at all follow up
Tue 20 14:49:41 <cpaelzer> and once proven worthwhile we can think about expanding
Tue 20 14:49:42 <sarnold> cpaelzer: okay, so leavaing that aside, you feel like the work is otherwise reasonable enough and not yet cause for concern?
Tue 20 14:49:50 <cpaelzer> yes
Tue 20 14:50:04 <cpaelzer> only the security side of things sometimes stalls :-)
Tue 20 14:50:15 <sarnold> and occasional meetings with two or three team members showing up is also no cause for concern?
Tue 20 14:50:15 <cpaelzer> but this got better since you sarnold have eslerm as buddy
Tue 20 14:50:28 <sarnold> cpaelzer: and much help from others :)
Tue 20 14:50:32 <cpaelzer> indeed
Tue 20 14:50:45 <cpaelzer> sarnold: it hasn't been blocking us that we attend as we are available (like no PTO coverage)
Tue 20 14:51:03 <cpaelzer> if it would be, I'd consider it - but since it worked fine - why make things more ocmplex
Tue 20 14:51:26 <sarnold> cool, thanks for the discussion; and I'm glad to hear the larger question is being asked elsewhere, too
Tue 20 14:51:32 <cpaelzer> indeed