#225 Discussion on New SIG Proposal - Web Application Development
Opened 2 months ago by t0xic0der. Modified 16 hours ago

With reference to the discussions which have gone down at https://pagure.io/mentored-projects/issue/85 and https://pagure.io/mentored-projects/issue/95, we have come to figure out that a SIG, especially for Web Application Development, would be needed. There are many web applications like Mote and many ideas that are proposed for the betterment of the community that are not able to garner contributors and users due to them being available on different planes.

Newcomers at Join SIG often say that they are well-versed with web technologies, but they are not quite sure where to begin with - to which I either give them some issues (that I have been scrounging for me) to work on if they are eager to get started quickly or ask them to first explore Fedora as a community before jumping into tasks. This SIG would help avoid the scrounging part by providing for a place to know more about these applications and how folks can contribute to them.

We might also want to consider a fedora-web GitHub/Pagure organization for this. What do you folks think?

CC @jflory7 @bt0dotninja


Today, @ramyaparimi, @t0xic0der, and I met for what was previously called the Møte developer's meeting, but we decided to rebrand it as the Web Development SIG meeting. We had a few key thoughts in our brainstorming call today:

  1. There are many web development projects and opportunities in Fedora, but they are disconnected and isolated from each other.
  2. The Fedora Community is innovative and creative, and we want to better leverage these skills in our web development projects.
  3. The Red Hat CPE team, which includes Fedora Infrastructure, works better with long-term planning and engagements. Better to group like things together into fewer clear requests than several random requests.
  4. Many people drop off from Fedora development work if they do not become a packager within ~3 months of contributing. A Web Development SIG may better catch people before they fall off, and include them in a project that interests them after they get to know the Fedora Community.

To that end, a new FAS group is created to inaugurate the Web Development SIG!

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/view/sig-webdev

The open questions we need to figure out next are which infrastructure and tools we will use to collaborate on. We looked at Pagure and noted the new kanban board feature. So, we will likely need a new SIG repository.

Metadata Update from @jflory7:
- Issue priority set to: needs review (was: awaiting triage)
- Issue tagged with: help wanted, needs feedback, team - commops, type - onboarding

2 months ago

@pbokoc If we create a new Pagure repo, could you help facilitate a new docs website for the newly-inaugurated Web Development SIG? I forget if the Docs team has a checklist of tasks for a new docs project.

@jflory7 All I need is a buildable repo with content you're comfortable publishing (preferably with no visible TODOs and that kind of stuff) - ping me with a link and I'll get it published :).

Hey @t0xic0der ,I really think we should do this.

Because from a newcomer's pov,we're not really used to the Fedora ecosystem,and web applications could have alot more scope.

We can also revive some projects take by the community prior and give easyfix issues to new members(me included),that would boost confidence as well get us into the community.

I have some ideas about https://pagure.io/mentored-projects/issue/85 , as we spoke on telegram for enhancements on more formats,I would really like to see it be a part of the SIG.

@pbokoc wrote…
All I need is a buildable repo with content you're comfortable publishing (preferably with no visible TODOs and that kind of stuff) - ping me with a link and I'll get it published :).

I initialized a new Fedora Docs repository here. It is ready to build and publish:

https://pagure.io/sig-webdev/home

@ramyaparimi @t0xic0der I launched our Pagure group and a repository to begin tracking our work. I set up some of the metadata but we still need to fill out issues and set up a project board. Links below:

hi, why would you not do this work as the pre-existing websites team?

i would absolutely support a web dev team for web devs who are using fedora as a platform - but this concept seems to be working on webapps for the fedora community, which is already the websites team's charter. that team could use a revival, so wouldn't that be a better way to do this?

cc @riecatnor

I have worked with current web-team repo, but don't know anyone else active there. Suggest reviving existing group and ask @bcotton to give guidance as well.

Hi @duffy, this is a great point. I synced with @riecatnor on this earlier today too.

I see the Websites team working on official Fedora web appliances hosted on *.fedoraproject.org domains. Someone gets pinged if these sites go down. The motivation for this SIG was to build support around various frontend/backend projects hanging around in Fedora land. The list we were thinking about included Møte, some work with Fedora Badges, Fedocal, the Elections app, etc.

I also see more of an infrastructure/sysadmin nature to the work I am hoping we take on in this SIG. I see the (valuable) role of design and user experience in the wheelhouse of Design Team and Websites Team. Is this a correct assumption?

They say hindsight is 20/20. So, I wonder if calling this a "DevOps SIG" is a better fit for the Fedora Community so we don't confuse people about what kind of work we are actually doing.

@jflory7 I still think it should just be websites. The infra team still exists too. So if folks want to work on ops they can join infra, web development join websites. If those functions should be merged then merge the existing teams instead of creating another, you know?

The diff here is that the infra and websites teams are teams, not SIGS. So its clear they work on things for fedora. SIGs are more like special interest and not necessarily related to doing smtg for fedora, rather with Fedora. Eg the robotics SIG doesnt make robots for fedora, it makes robots with Fedora.

By setting this up as a SIG, no matter what the name... webdev, devops, etc... it sets up the expectation that it is a community of practice around $NAME that uses Fedora. When that gets mixed up in working on Fedora assets, it introduces all sorts of confusion.

So why are you looking to form this as a SIG?

Each discipline we have does bleed into others at the edges but at the end of the day they are diff functions and should be working together cross team, which is why for example the mindshare crossteam group exists.

Hey Mo,

@duffy wrote…
If those functions should be merged then merge the existing teams instead of creating another, you know?

I hear you on this. And @riecatnor emphasized the same to me. But I feel like there is a mouth and a hand, and they are doing two different things out of sync. I will explain below.

@duffy wrote…
Each discipline we have does bleed into others at the edges but at the end of the day they are diff functions and should be working together cross team, which is why for example the mindshare crossteam group exists.

Huge +1!

@duffy wrote…
The infra team still exists too. So if folks want to work on ops they can join infra, web development join websites.

It exists, but is it a community team or is it a Red Hat team? [1]

The Infra Apprentice program appears stalled to me (as a former apprentice); people sign up and then drop off without connections or mentorship. The Red Hat CPE Team has delegated multiple projects as "community-supported" without defining who the community is or if there even is a community of practice there at all [2], [3]. Even though there are good folks on CPE team, they are very cautious about lending their support or engaging with volunteer work when it happens because they are already tied up with other work and get slapped on the hand if they spend too much time elsewhere.

I guess I get frustrated at times too because it feels like a run-around where nobody wants responsibility for maintaining these "community apps" that are actually important to the community and what we do, but are neglected in resources and capacity to evolve the apps forward in new innovative ways.

@duffy wrote…
So why are you looking to form this as a SIG?

This seemed like the most actionable and realistic way to empower a group of people, specifically community volunteers, to both gain new skills in development, system administration, and project management. We do not have developers provided to us, so we need to group them together. We do not have infrastructure people or sysadmins provided to us, so we need to group them together. We do not have PMs provided to us, so we need to group them together.

To me, "DevOps" is a blending of different types of skills and experiences related to what we want to form a SIG around. Is a SIG the best option? Maybe not. But then what is?

Infrastructure is not just Red Hat. CPE is Red Hat. There are Infrastructure team members who are not Red Hat employees.

I agree with @duffy This could be done under the existing websites team and infra team. Infra is happy to have new people join.

@nb wrote…
There are Infrastructure team members who are not Red Hat employees.

You are right. There are folks involved who are not Red Hatters. But these roles are undocumented. It is less clear how someone goes from newcomer to active participant with day-to-day infrastructure work.

@nb wrote…
Infra is happy to have new people join.

Infra Team can be happy to have new people join, but keeping people is a different challenge and requires different kinds of skills. We need mentorship and mentors. We need people who have patience and time to provide consistent guidance over time to more junior developers and administrators. That is the gap this DevOps SIG aims to fill.

From my point-of-view as a community member, there is more friction instead of less in finding ways to collaborate with CPE Team on Fedora projects that aren't about "packaging". It is difficult to feel like an equal stakeholder in Fedora Infra projects if you are not also working at Red Hat. There are exceptions, but exceptions are exceptional. They are not always wide representations.

Keeping people is a challenge that needs people w skills to do that sure, but not sure how that is easier making a new group rather than reinvigorating the ones that already exist and merging them if needed. Are the ppl willing to do this work somehow unable to do it if the group is called devops sig instead of fedora infra team, fedora websites team, fedora devops team [proposed merger name]?

It is very exciting that it seems there are folks interested in this work. You are right that it needs doing. I still dont understand why as a SIG (why not a team) and why not use or merfe the existing relevant teams?

@duffy wrote…
Are the ppl willing to do this work somehow unable to do it if the group is called devops sig instead of fedora infra team, fedora websites team, fedora devops team [proposed merger name]? […] I still dont understand why as a SIG (why not a team) and why not use or merfe the existing relevant teams?

We went the SIG route because it is easier to spin up a new SIG in Fedora to pilot a new idea, than go through a formal process to turn it into a team. We are four people right now. :grinning:

Red Hat CPE/OSPO and Fedora Infra/Websites teams are less clear than they were years ago. The relationships between Fedora and Red Hat are sometimes blurred, especially if Fedora is only small part of a person's paid responsibilities. There is not clear governance to know who is calling the shots, because not all the shots are called in public. There are too many stakeholders.

I am also thinking about this unaddressed point:

@jflory7 wrote…
The Red Hat CPE Team has delegated multiple projects as "community-supported" without defining who the community is or if there even is a community of practice there at all [2], [3].

What does community-supported mean? I thought this was a role of SIGs in Fedora, to take on work as community-supported.

If we had a longer-term vision for this effort combined with a large community to sustain the work, it would be simple. But we are piloting out a new idea with a mentorship-first approach inspired by the Fedora Join model. This mentorship-first approach is missing from current Fedora Infra and Website teams.

@mattdm joined the Matrix room briefly and we talked about ways to bridge this conversation with the wider strategy about the Websites team.

I invited @mattdm and @riecatnor to join us for the weekly SIG meeting on Fridays at 09:30am U.S. ET. They're both on P.T.O. now and have not had a chance to look closely, but this ticket is not urgent. Right now in the SIG, we are trying to take an initial inventory of what is out there.

@jflory7 We're in for a meeting. Is it video or IRC?

Hi @mattdm,

This meeting is conducted on Jitsi Meet on every Friday, 08:00PM IST (I
think 02:30PM UTC). Please do join us in the next meeting :)

Thanks & Regards,
Akashdeep Dhar

On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 8:20 PM Matthew Miller pagure@pagure.io wrote:

mattdm added a new comment to an issue you are following:
@jflory7 We're in for a meeting. Is it video or IRC?

To reply, visit the link below or just reply to this email
https://pagure.io/fedora-commops/issue/225

So, what would be the url for the meeting ?

Here's the meeting link:

https://meet.jit.si/FedoraDevOpsSIG

Meeting starts @ 14:30 UTC

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata