[Discourse.ros.org] [Quality Assurance] ROS Quality Assurance Working Group meeting minutes Kick Off Meeting - 10/01/2018

17 views
Skip to first unread message

Adam Alami

unread,
Jan 11, 2018, 10:18:35 AM1/11/18
to ros-jap...@googlegroups.com
Alami
January 11

ROS Quality Assurance Working Group meeting minutes Kick Off Meeting
Time: 9 a.m. UTC and 5 p.m. UTC

Participants:
9 a.m. UTC Group

  1. Adam Alami
  2. Akshay Jain
  3. Andrzej Wasowski
  4. Geoffrey Biggs
  5. Kei Okada

5 p.m. UTC Group

  1. Adam Alami
  2. Aaditya Saraiya
  3. David Bensoussan
  4. Dirk Thomas
  5. Gijs van Hood
  6. Ian McMahon
  7. Luca Marchionni
  8. Matt Droter
  9. Shaun Edwards
  10. Victor Lopez

Notes:
ROSIN quality assurance (QA) initiatives were discussed. Below is a summary of the discussion. The following problems and solutions were discussed:

  1. Problem: There is a lack of a centralized source for community quality assurance practices, knowledge, and collaboration.
    a. Solutions:
    i. Quality Hub: Would inform about existing practices and would be a central “go-to” place for QA
    knowledge sharing (documentation of QA practices)
    1. Discussion:
    a. Make the content of the website educational and easy to digest.
    b. The content should capture the knowledge most engineers do not already have.
    c. The website should be incorporated into the existing infrastructure (i.e., Wiki, ROS
    Answers).
    ii. Quality Discourse: A dedicated QA forum
    1. Discussion:
    a. A chapter was created for Quality Assurance.

  2. Problem: The quality of packages is not visible.
    a. Solution:
    i. Make ROS packages’ quality visible.
    1. Discussion:
    a. A “Quality Stamp” was suggested. We can use a script (leverage existing Github
    feature) to generate the stamp.
    b. Enforce the stamp creation in the distribution process.

  3. Problem: Inconsistent practice of code review
    a. Solution:
    i. Energize the code review process.
    1. Discussion:
    a. It was recommended to use the combination of a tool and peer review.
    b. It was suggested to create a website (i.e., similar to answers.org) dedicated to code
    review.
    c. Motivation was discussed. What would motivate community members to do code
    review? A reward system similar to the “Karma” system was discussed.
    d. Review and update the current standards.
    e. Possibly provide tutorials on how to review a pull request.

  4. Problem: Recruiting maintainers is a “real problem” for ROS and ROS-I. This has led to an increasing
    number of orphan packages. This is a capacity issue within the core team. The team is struggling to attract
    new maintainers. The team capacity does not reflect the maintenance effort required. This is also applicable
    to non-core packages. There is a lack of willingness to contribute to packages’ maintenance. It is a
    challenge to attract and retain new maintainers.
    a. Solutions:
    i. Propose and implement a funding model for the maintenance activities.
    ii. Organize periodic campaigns to recruit new maintainers for both core and non-core packages.
    iii. Define an onboarding process for both core and non-core community members.
    iv. Document the onboarding process, including online educational materials (i.e., tutorials).
    v. Implement the onboarding process.
    vi. Formalize the code ownership process.
    1. Discussion:
    a. Reward maintainers with Github Bounty.
    b. Identify a sustainability strategy.
    c. The possibility of using ROSIN FTPs to finance maintenance was discussed.

Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.

To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.

Jack O'Quin

unread,
Jan 13, 2018, 5:11:55 PM1/13/18
to ros-jap...@googlegroups.com
joq
January 13

I recommend using the github tools for code reviews.

Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

Previous Replies

Alami
January 11

ROS Quality Assurance Working Group meeting minutes Kick Off Meeting
Time: 9 a.m. UTC and 5 p.m. UTC

Participants:
9 a.m. UTC Group

  1. Adam Alami
  2. Akshay Jain
  3. Andrzej Wasowski
  4. Geoffrey Biggs
  5. Kei Okada

5 p.m. UTC Group

  1. Adam Alami
  2. Aaditya Saraiya
  3. David Bensoussan
  4. Dirk Thomas
  1. Gijs van der Hoorn
  1. Ian McMahon
  2. Luca Marchionni
  3. Matt Droter
  4. Shaun Edwards
  5. Victor Lopez

Notes:
ROSIN quality assurance (QA) initiatives were discussed. Below is a summary of the discussion. The following problems and solutions were discussed:

  1. Problem: There is a lack of a centralized source for community quality assurance practices, knowledge, and collaboration.

    1. Solutions:
      1. Quality Hub: Would inform about existing practices and would be a central “go-to” place for QA knowledge sharing (documentation of QA practices)
        1. Discussion:
            1. Make the content of the website educational and easy to digest.
            1. The content should capture the knowledge most engineers do not already have.
            1. The website should be incorporated into the existing infrastructure (i.e., Wiki, ROS Answers).
        1. Quality Discourse: A dedicated QA forum
          1. Discussion:
            1. A chapter was created for Quality Assurance.

    1. Problem: The quality of packages is not visible.

      1. Solution:
        1. Make ROS packages’ quality visible.
          1. Discussion:
          1. A “Quality Stamp” was suggested. We can use a script (leverage existing Github feature) to generate the stamp.
          1. Enforce the stamp creation in the distribution process.

    1. Problem: Inconsistent practice of code review

      1. Solution:
        1. Energize the code review process.
          1. Discussion:
              1. It was recommended to use the combination of a tool and peer review.
              1. It was suggested to create a website (i.e., similar to answers.org) dedicated to code review.
              1. Motivation was discussed. What would motivate community members to do code review? A reward system similar to the “Karma” system was discussed.
              1. Review and update the current standards.
              1. Possibly provide tutorials on how to review a pull request.

      1. Problem: Recruiting maintainers is a “real problem” for ROS and ROS-I. This has led to an increasing number of orphan packages. This is a capacity issue within the core team. The team is struggling to attract new maintainers. The team capacity does not reflect the maintenance effort required. This is also applicable to non-core packages. There is a lack of willingness to contribute to packages’ maintenance. It is a challenge to attract and retain new maintainers.

        1. Solutions:
            1. Propose and implement a funding model for the maintenance activities.
            1. Organize periodic campaigns to recruit new maintainers for both core and non-core packages.
            1. Define an onboarding process for both core and non-core community members.
            1. Document the onboarding process, including online educational materials (i.e., tutorials).
            1. Implement the onboarding process.
            1. Formalize the code ownership process.
              1. Discussion:
              1. Reward maintainers with Github Bounty.
              1. Identify a sustainability strategy.
              1. The possibility of using ROSIN FTPs to finance maintenance was discussed.

        Adam Alami

        unread,
        Jan 14, 2018, 11:07:57 AM1/14/18
        to ros-jap...@googlegroups.com
        Alami
        January 14

        GitHub Marketplace

        GitHub integrates with hundreds of applications and services that help you and your team build software better, together.

        Ingo Lütkebohle

        unread,
        Jan 14, 2018, 1:02:58 PM1/14/18
        to ros-jap...@googlegroups.com
        iluetkeb
        January 14

        Where can I get informed about future meetings of this initiative?

        Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.

        Previous Replies

        Alami
        January 14

        GitHub Marketplace

        GitHub integrates with hundreds of applications and services that help you and your team build software better, together.

        joq
        January 13

        I recommend using the github tools for code reviews.

        Alami
        January 11

        ROS Quality Assurance Working Group meeting minutes Kick Off Meeting
        Time: 9 a.m. UTC and 5 p.m. UTC

        Participants:
        9 a.m. UTC Group

        1. Adam Alami
        2. Akshay Jain
        3. Andrzej Wasowski
        4. Geoffrey Biggs
        5. Kei Okada

        5 p.m. UTC Group

        1. Adam Alami
        2. Aaditya Saraiya
        3. David Bensoussan
        4. Dirk Thomas
        1. Gijs van der Hoorn
        1. Ian McMahon
        2. Luca Marchionni
        3. Matt Droter
        4. Shaun Edwards
        5. Victor Lopez

        Notes:
        ROSIN quality assurance (QA) initiatives were discussed. Below is a summary of the discussion. The following problems and solutions were discussed:

        1. Problem: There is a lack of a centralized source for community quality assurance practices, knowledge, and collaboration.

          1. Solutions:
            1. Quality Hub: Would inform about existing practices and would be a central “go-to” place for QA knowledge sharing (documentation of QA practices)
              1. Discussion:
                  1. Make the content of the website educational and easy to digest.
                  1. The content should capture the knowledge most engineers do not already have.
                  1. The website should be incorporated into the existing infrastructure (i.e., Wiki, ROS Answers).
              1. Quality Discourse: A dedicated QA forum
                1. Discussion:
                  1. A chapter was created for Quality Assurance.

          1. Problem: The quality of packages is not visible.

            1. Solution:
              1. Make ROS packages’ quality visible.
                1. Discussion:
                1. A “Quality Stamp” was suggested. We can use a script (leverage existing Github feature) to generate the stamp.
                1. Enforce the stamp creation in the distribution process.

          1. Problem: Inconsistent practice of code review

            1. Solution:
              1. Energize the code review process.
                1. Discussion:
                    1. It was recommended to use the combination of a tool and peer review.
                    1. It was suggested to create a website (i.e., similar to answers.org) dedicated to code review.
                    1. Motivation was discussed. What would motivate community members to do code review? A reward system similar to the “Karma” system was discussed.
                    1. Review and update the current standards.
                    1. Possibly provide tutorials on how to review a pull request.

            1. Problem: Recruiting maintainers is a “real problem” for ROS and ROS-I. This has led to an increasing number of orphan packages. This is a capacity issue within the core team. The team is struggling to attract new maintainers. The team capacity does not reflect the maintenance effort required. This is also applicable to non-core packages. There is a lack of willingness to contribute to packages’ maintenance. It is a challenge to attract and retain new maintainers.

              1. Solutions:
                  1. Propose and implement a funding model for the maintenance activities.
                  1. Organize periodic campaigns to recruit new maintainers for both core and non-core packages.
                  1. Define an onboarding process for both core and non-core community members.
                  1. Document the onboarding process, including online educational materials (i.e., tutorials).
                  1. Implement the onboarding process.
                  1. Formalize the code ownership process.
                    1. Discussion:
                    1. Reward maintainers with Github Bounty.
                    1. Identify a sustainability strategy.
                    1. The possibility of using ROSIN FTPs to finance maintenance was discussed.

              Adam Alami

              unread,
              Jan 14, 2018, 1:40:42 PM1/14/18
              to ros-jap...@googlegroups.com
              Alami
              January 14

              I’ll send you the Doole link for next meeting to your email. I have your email. I believe I sent you for the first meeting.

              Ingo Lütkebohle

              unread,
              Jan 15, 2018, 3:31:12 AM1/15/18
              to ros-jap...@googlegroups.com
              iluetkeb
              January 15

              @Alami ah, I see. Yes, I got a doodle inquiry, but did not respond. So probably that’s why I didn’t get the result…

              In the future, I’ll know to respond. For me personally, I would welcome getting the meeting date in any case, regardless of whether I responded or not, but I can see how other people might feel differently.

              Alami
              January 11
                1. Solutions:
                Reply all
                Reply to author
                Forward
                0 new messages