Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Recruiting projects to join labs

Recruiting people to become stewards

  • Are stewards a bottleneck?
  • Does Labs need more?
  • No labels

13 Comments

  1. Regarding lifecycle: I would really love to avoid adding lifecycle to labs given the challenges that we have with the project lifecycle.

    1. I agree with Tracy here, the whole archiving thing has caused work; due to unarchiving and some other questions. It is OK if they are dormant for a while unless we spend resources for dormant labs.

  2. Regarding current growth: 23 current labs, 12 archived labs. That is 35 labs since February 2018. 

    What is the concern regarding the lab growth? Are we expecting that we would have more?

  3. I would say that the bigger challenge is not number of stewards, but sponsors for labs. We have 13 sponsors across the active labs with 3 people sponsoring 4 labs each, 1 person sponsoring 3 labs each, 1 person sponsoring 2 labs, and the remaining sponsors sponsoring 1 lab.

    1. Given that the ask for sponsors was very light, it is OK. I think there is confusion about who can be a sponsor.

  4. what resources are given to labs in other organizations? the labs i've been involved with have benefited from mailing lists & rocket chat channels. if we want to solicit more participation, are there other things that could be provided to make the lab more likely to foster collaboration?


    1. It would be great to hear from individual labs, if they think that they have done something significant. It could be a presentation, an email to the tsc/labs, with clear achievements or challenges so that interested people can weigh in or decide to contribute.

      OTOH- most labs are small affairs with less than 3 or 4 contributors, so chat channels/mailing list may be overkill

  5. I would say there was a lack of approvals during the month of December and Jan was probably what Ry meant.

    Most of the labs hanging out without approvals was because of

    a. Archiving and un archiving- confusion regarding the requirements for unarchiving

    b. No proper sponsor

    Labs were always thought to be lightweight so why archive? Unless they are a drain on the resources.

    As a steward I would love to hear Ry's feedback. Ry since you are the face of the labs for most people and the only one with Admin privileges who sets up the repos...


  6. I think this page is missing a problem statement. What problem are you trying to solve? The title seems to indicate that labs are suffering from lack of growth. Is that it? What is that assessment based on?

    1. Let us reframe the question Ry.

      Maybe, how can we make labs better without a change in effort from the stewards?

      Changes in processes? Tweaks in the documentation? Adding how to get sponsors?

      Do we need more stewards? Are PRs hanging out longer than usual without responses or guidance?

      1. I like the idea about adding a section about how to get sponsors.

  7. I propose a slight rewrite to the labs charter.

    Currently the focus in the charter is on why labs will take the pressure off the regular project incubation process.

    Let us focus on why the labs are a good idea on their own.

    a. Emphasize the governance, community building, openness, aspect of labs.

    b. Clarify the process a little more, so that we can recommend sponsors-maintainers of projects, WG chairs (I propose we add SIG chairs to this) - there has to be a list or a way to discover these folks (whose only job is to ensure that the proposal is well written with some worthwhile goals in mind).