Page MenuHomePhabricator

Create 'secteam-discussion' tag
Closed, ResolvedPublic


I jumped the gun and created #needs_discussion already. Bad manners on my part, @Aklapper has communicated concern and I want to step back and get things on a task as I should have from the get go. I'm not sure what the best outcome is but I have a use case in mind so let's see if it makes sense.

A needs discussion column takes up rarely used real estate on our board but we do have some tasks that are essentially waiting [column] and the wait is on more discussion. With the workboard I can do a custom query to narrow down what tasks show up and it's nice to be able to show only those things in Security-Team that #need discussion. So for us the thinking was that it is a transient state but a manually curated one, and one that is sort of preference based on workboard sanity. I view it differently from the patch review tag as that's a bunch of bot madness integration with gerrit. I'm not sure how you feel about all that.

Proposal: I would like to keep the tag and see if it becomes troublesome. We are basically saying we want to have one waiting/pending column and use the tag for annotation. With a herald rule to remove on task resolution or maybe even movement off the workboard idk? I would like to try it essentially and I may be wrong and it's a fiasco, but it's a small experiment I think.

Event Timeline

Quoting @Aklapper scoped to just concerns via email (I believe he'll be ok with this):

Asking as I'm opposed to this and would love to archive this tag.

In my understanding, this must be a column on a workboard.

"Needs Discussion" is a temporary status. A temporary status should
never be expressed by a project tag. (We're making this mistake already
with #Patch-For-Review and I don't want to repeat it.)

My initial response:

I think there is a case to be made for using it instead of a column in some cases but if it makes your spidey senses tingle I'll figure something else out.  Feel free to archive it and I'll try to keep my itchy trigger finger in check too.

Note: I added some outline in the description here to flesh things out.

chasemp added a project: Phabricator.
chasemp lowered the priority of this task from Medium to Low.Jan 14 2020, 4:49 PM
chasemp moved this task from Incoming to In Progress on the Security-Team board.
@chasemp wrote:

it's nice to be able to show only those things in Security-Team that #need discussion.

Security-Team has a workboard column called "Waiting", plus there is a "stalled" task status that a workboard could be filtered on. I admit I don't know what "waiting" means (or for who), but "need discussion" sounds like a subset of it? What's the need for differentiation on different "waiting" reasons?
I guess the scope of both "Needs discussion" and "Waiting" is currently equally vague to me.

To quote @Peachey88 (who remembered the previous iteration, and I did not, thanks a lot!) from T226671#5288465:

a global project as proposed would be non descriptive for this purpose. If a task has multiple projects on it, Where does the needs discussion apply to?

I assume that maybe the majority of all open tasks "need discussion" in some way (apart from tasks which are in a late phase of their task life cycle, or tasks which are very specific bug reports with a clear, single approach to take). So again, the scope is currently unclear to me.
(Plus I can imagine folks who love categorizing for the sake of categorizing to add that tag on gazillions of tasks, but probably I'm overly pessimistic.)

On an abstract "those damn principles" level, I believe that using tags for temporary status transitions is wrong (a better bad example here would be Community-consensus-needed which IMHO should not exist but simply use task status = "stalled" and/or a column on the workboard). I'm reminded of which mentions both workboard columns and statuses to track progress (or, well, statuses). The proposal here seems to add a third way to that crazy mix.

@chasemp wrote:

I would like to try it essentially

I'm not going to block you. I just think that this is wrong, for the reasons outlined above. :P

Ok, I'm going to tentatively step into this then. If it becomes a Thing (tm) I'll understand if we nuke it from orbit, but Security-Team would really like to try this out as part of our workflow.

chasemp renamed this task from Create 'Needs Discussion' tag to Create 'secteam-discussion' tag.Jan 21 2020, 4:09 PM

thinking about the concerns presented here and keeping the scope of this contained I decided to rename to #secteam-discussion. I think this will contain the proliferation but also let us try out our desired workflow.