You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 2 Next »

The following process (originally developed by the Technology Architecture Task Force) is recommended for managing GitHub issues during the development of any ToIP deliverable (specification, template, white paper, etc.)

This process is recommended for issue management even if the deliverable itself is not in GitHub. For example, if the deliverable is being developed as a Google doc, any issue that cannot adequately be handled by a comment thread can use this process to discuss and resolve the issue.

Process

  1. Setup. First, the Working Group or Task Force ("group") needs to contact the ToIP Foundation Program Manager (currently Elisa Trevino) to request setup of a GitHub repo for the deliverable. The group should also request that Github Discussions be turned on for the repo so the Discussions feature is available to the group for Q&A or other discussions that are not necessarily issues (but can be easily converted into formal GitHub issues when needed).
  2. Editors. The Working Group or Task Force ("group") appoints an Editors team who will take on the job of reviewing issues, assigning group members to an issue, and proposing when an issue is ready for closure.
    1. As a general rule, any one member of the Editors team can perform an action permitted under this role — it does not require consensus among all the Editors. However the Editors are trusted to use their judgement about when an action should be decided by consensus of the editors or consensus of the whole group.
    2. The members of the Editor team should be published on the group's home page and acknowledged in the final deliverable for their extra contribution.
  3. Maintainers. The Editors shall in turn appoint a set of Maintainers who have the Github skills (and the necessary permissions) to accept PRs and publish versions of the deliverable. Typically a subset of the Editors serve as Maintainers, but all the Editors can serve in this role, or it can be assigned to others in the group.
  4. Labels. The Editors should agree on a set of labels to categorize and prioritize issues for resolution (see the recommended starting list below). While any group member can and should be able to apply labels to issues, it is the Editors job to ensure labels are applied consistently, fairly, and timely.
  5. Assignments. Any group member should be able to assign an issue to another group member. It is the Editors job to try to make sure issues have assignees, and that issues are assigned consistently, fairly, and timely. If an assignee is not progressing with an issue, the Editors can re-assign it as necessary.
  6. Subgroups. If an issue appears to require in-depth discussion and analysis, the Editors should propose (or solicit) a subgroup to tackle the issue and come back to the group with a proposed resolution. This subgroup should:
    1. Keep as much of their discussion as possible within GitHub Issues — and, if necessary, Github Discussions. If any substantive discussions take place in other channels (e.g., Slack) or proposals are drafted outside of GitHub (e.g., in a Google doc), they must be copied into GitHub to create a permanent public audit trail.
    2. Develop an approach to solving the issue (along the lines of an ISO "Technical Report", i.e., issue mandate, technical policy, high-level requirements and expected outcomes).
    3. Return with a proposal (text and diagrams) for resolution of the issue (along the lines of an ISO "Technical Spec"). Ideally the proposal is written up in a form that can be easily: a) turned into a PR (for a GitHub document), or b) copy-and-pasted as a revision to a Google doc or other format.
  7. Closure. When the Editors believe there is consensus about the proposed resolution of an issue, one of the Editors applies the label last-call-to-close.
    1. Once that label has been applied, a group member MUST object to closure by making a comment on the issue within 5 calendar days to reopen discussion of the issue.
    2. If there is no objection within 5 calendar days, the proposed resolution shall be applied to the deliverable by one of the Maintainers and one of the Editors shall close the issue with no further discussion.
    3. If there is an objection, the Editors will take it to a group meeting to reach final consensus on closure.

Issue Labels

The following set of labels are recommended as a starter set. The group can augment these with additional deliverable-specific labels.

LabelUsage
  • priority-1
  • priority-2
  • priority-3
Very useful to assign priority to issues. Most helpful in the latter stages of a deliverable when a deadline looms and it is important to focus the group's attention/bandwidth. 
  • defer-to-V2
Assigned when there is group consensus that an issue can be deferred to a subsequent version.
  • editorial
  • substantial
  • correction
Categorizes issues to help group members focus on those most relevant to them.
  • needs-editor-review
  • needs-subgroup
  • needs-proposal
  • needs-PR

Identifies the next step needed to progress an issue.

All issues created/labeled by a non-editor should be flagged as needs-editor-review.

  • PR-exists
Marks an issue as ready for closure pending closure of the associated PR (which must be linked to the issue).
  • last-call-to-close
Applied when consensus has been reached on closure; triggers the 5 day waiting period before automatic closure.



  • No labels