fesco

#3561 How to handle tickets more responsively
Closed: Accepted by zbyszek. Opened by sgallagh.

Closed: Accepted
Reopen Issue

During today's FESCo meeting, we acknowledged that there are some problems with our ticket handling. In particular, we often fail to mark Changes or other tickets approved when the process requires. (Seven days with +3 or fourteen days with +1).

I'd like to propose that we formally add a responsibility to check the tickets at least once a day into our charter. My thought is that, like the rotating FESCo chair, we could each do a week's cycle as Ticket Gardener (name not final). The idea would be that for one week, the person would commit to skimming through the tickets once a day for a few minutes and just check whether they had crossed an approval period threshold.

Rather than always waiting for the Chair to review every ticket the day before (or of) the meeting, this would spread out the load AND provide responses to the Change owners much faster.

My first instinct was to suggest that this responsibility should be assigned to the Chair, but it's already difficult to find someone to volunteer for Chair duty and I think adding work to it would be yet more difficult.

Instead, I'd like to suggest that we just rotate through the FESCo roster week-to-week so that everyone serves one week and then has eight weeks off. It's predictable, fair and avoids the situation where some members tend to end up chairing more often than others. If someone misses a day or two during their week, that's still better than the current cadence. If someone truly can't manage the entire week (PTO, medical leave, etc.) then we can invent a solution at that time.

+1 to the idea of trying to tend to the weeds every day.

Not sure I like the round robin gardening duty though. Maybe asking for volunteers similar to next week's meeting chair would work too? Looking at tickets once a day shouldn't be that much work.

How about this: When a fesco member adds a +1 to a ticket, the person adding the +1 should check and if the ticket is approved by the current process, they should also mark it approved at that time.

Adding more process for people to remember to do will probibly start out strong, but then fall by the wayside.

That makes sense to me. I usually try to do this myself already.

When a fesco member adds a +1 to a ticket, the person adding the +1 should check and if the ticket is approved by the current process, they should also mark it approved at that time.

Definitely. I try to do that myself and I think it makes a lot of sense.

If we agree to do that, having the "Gardener" seems less important. Maybe we could additionally agree that the chair would go over the tickets an extra time in the second half of the week. This would mean that the tickets would be processed ~Thu–Fri and Mon–Tue (since the meeting is on Tuesday). Then we'd have a fairly low latency with minimal additional effort.

Let's discuss this during the meeting today (18:00 GMT in https://matrix.to/#/#meeting:fedoraproject.org).

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue tagged with: meeting

This was discussed during the meeting today:
the general agreement is that FESCo members will check if tickets can be marked as approved when voting.

  • ACTION: We need to have a PR for the docs.

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue untagged with: meeting

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue tagged with: document it

I looked at our docs, and I don't see a good place to put this. I think we should just have an internal agreement.

When a fesco member adds a +1 to a ticket, the person adding the +1 should check and if the ticket is approved by the current process, they should also mark it approved at that time.

+1

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue untagged with: document it

+1

+1

I looked at our docs, and I don't see a good place to put this. I think we should just have an internal agreement.

Perhaps in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/#ticket-votes ?

Perhaps in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/#ticket-votes ?

Yeah, that's pretty much the only place that is a candidate. But how we coordinate work internally isn't really something that is interesting to everybody else. That page is already fairly complicated and I didn't want to add another paragraph. Also because that paragraph would necessarilly be a soft recommendation, not part of the rules. That is why I think an internal agreement is better.

Do we still want to update the docs, or can we agree to agree and close this ticket?

We agree to agree: When a fesco member adds a +1 to a ticket, the person adding the +1 should check and if the ticket is approved by the current process, they should also mark it approved at that time.

Metadata Update from @zbyszek:
- Issue close_status updated to: Accepted
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Metadata
None
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.