#488 Review of Stakeholders & Decision Makers for Git Forge Evaluation 2024
Opened 2 months ago by amoloney. Modified 10 days ago

Hi council members,

@humaton and I have been working on solidifying a plan to investigate the two git forge options the council decided to pursue in our hackfest '24. One of the pieces of the plan is identifying stakeholders and decision makers to involve in the investigation the Community Platform Engineerings ARC team will do. The degree of involvement is not yet set, and will largely be dependant on peoples time and capacity to take part, but noting the groups we need to engage with will be critical.

For this evaluation, I propose we have two personas:
- A Stakeholder - a group that is affected by the changes and their input and feedback is
- A Decision Maker - a group that will review the outputs of the investigation in depth and ultimately be responsible for the decision of which solution is best

We will define each group as fitting one persona or the other based on whether they are release-blocking.
The reason why I want this classification is that when we reach the end of the investigation process, we will need to decide on the path forward, and I would like to do this in the same way we do our release Go/No-Go meetings where we discuss the solution transparently and in detail, and then we vote on it. To do this, we need to identify those decision makers, and having them be release-blocking based seemed the best way.

Below is the list of groups, classified under Stakeholders and Decision-Makers. Please review before our next council meeting on Wednesday 24th April so we can discuss and make edits where needed.

Stakeholders
- Websites & Apps
- Mindshare
- Labs
- SIGs
- Marketing
- PgM

Decision Makers
- FESCo
- Fedora Council
- Infrastructure
- Rel-Eng
- QA
- Packaging
- Design
- Core-OS
- IoT
- Editions
- KDE
- Workstation
- Docs

This is my first pass at this, I expect some groupings are wrong, and some are missing so please do review this list. Thanks!


Metadata Update from @amoloney:
- Issue assigned to amoloney

2 months ago

Metadata Update from @amoloney:
- Issue tagged with: Next Meeting

2 months ago

@jonatoni mentioned elsewhere that the DEI Team should be a stakeholder. The team uses GitLab.com extensively for how we organize and plan our virtual events. In that same line of thinking, Community Ops should likely be a stakeholder too.

My first impression is that the stakeholder group should likely be larger than the decision-making group. This looks like a lot of decision-makers and I think gaining a single consensus will be difficult. I might prefer it to be three decision-makers: Council, FESCo, Fedora Infra/Rel-Eng.

@jonatoni mentioned elsewhere that the DEI Team should be a stakeholder. The team uses GitLab.com extensively for how we organize and plan our virtual events. In that same line of thinking, Community Ops should likely be a stakeholder too.

My first impression is that the stakeholder group should likely be larger than the decision-making group. This looks like a lot of decision-makers and I think gaining a single consensus will be difficult. I might prefer it to be three decision-makers: Council, FESCo, Fedora Infra/Rel-Eng.

I think in this specific case it might also be useful to give the Packaging Committee their own vote here. Packaging maintenance ties closely to the forge we use.

QA threw all the names in the Goblet of Fire. @frantisekz is the QA's chosen one.

So I think then to tie this up - the entire two lists are 'stakeholders', and we expect the ARC intvestigation to have captured requirements from each of these groups, and in the overall migration plan to the new forge.
The 'decision makers' of what forge will suit Fedoras needs based on the findings of the ARC investigation, and thus allowing the next phase of planning to start (migration plan, etc) will be Council, FESCo, Rel-Eng, QA and Packaging.

Does this sound correct?

Metadata Update from @amoloney:
- Issue priority set to: None (was: 1)

a month ago

Metadata Update from @amoloney:
- Issue tagged with: Needs Review

11 days ago

Log in to comment on this ticket.

Metadata