Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-14098

Update /datasets documentation to reflect RFC-308

    Details

    • Type: Story
    • Status: To Do
    • Resolution: Unresolved
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Labels:
      None
    • Story Points:
      1
    • Team:
      Data Facility

      Description

      RFC-308 proposed a change to the way datasets on the Verification Cluster are organized.

      Please update the Developer Guide to describe the new strategy.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            (I think this ticket belongs to the LDF, but please push back if you disagree.)

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - (I think this ticket belongs to the LDF, but please push back if you disagree.)
            Hide
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment -

            (I think that would be a question to Margaret Gelman and Joel Plutchak

            Show
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment - (I think that would be a question to Margaret Gelman and Joel Plutchak ) 
            Hide
            plutchak Joel Plutchak (Inactive) added a comment -

            I'm not 100% sure how RFCs are supposed to work, but wouldn't the creator of the RFC bear responsibility unless otherwise specified in the RFC itself?  (Reading the dev guide regarding RFCs it's not entirely clear-- and is a bit outdated-- but that would seem to be the answer.)

            Show
            plutchak Joel Plutchak (Inactive) added a comment - I'm not 100% sure how RFCs are supposed to work, but wouldn't the creator of the RFC bear responsibility unless otherwise specified in the RFC itself?  (Reading the dev guide regarding RFCs it's not entirely clear-- and is a bit outdated-- but that would seem to be the answer.)
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            No, that's not our usual practice. The RFC simply defines the work that needs to be done: scheduling and allocation of work is always the responsibility of T/CAMs.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - No, that's not our usual practice. The RFC simply defines the work that needs to be done: scheduling and allocation of work is always the responsibility of T/CAMs.
            Hide
            spietrowicz Steve Pietrowicz added a comment -

            There'e been confusion about RFCs because of this:

             

            https://developer.lsst.io/team/empowerment.html

             

            If the criteria aren't met, gets changed into an RFC, which is voted on and turns into work.

             

            I think the main point is that if the RFC requires that someone else do the work, that they be notified and involved with the discussion before it turns into a task.

             

            At least that's what I got out of the discussion when this came up in one of the meetings in Pasadena.

            Show
            spietrowicz Steve Pietrowicz added a comment - There'e been confusion about RFCs because of this:   https://developer.lsst.io/team/empowerment.html   If the criteria aren't met, gets changed into an RFC, which is voted on and turns into work.   I think the main point is that if the RFC requires that someone else do the work, that they be notified and involved with the discussion before it turns into a task.   At least that's what I got out of the discussion when this came up in one of the meetings in Pasadena.
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            I think I agree with Steve Pietrowicz in that RFCs submitted by person A that require work from another person should involve either that person or the T/CAM. On the other hand, adopting an RFC does not mandate implementation of an RFC. It's up to the proposer to agitate for implementation. Kian-Tat Lim and I have been discussing this on the SPIE paper where we talk about the RFC process.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - I think I agree with Steve Pietrowicz in that RFCs submitted by person A that require work from another person should involve either that person or the T/CAM. On the other hand, adopting an RFC does not mandate implementation of an RFC. It's up to the proposer to agitate for implementation. Kian-Tat Lim and I have been discussing this on the SPIE paper where we talk about the RFC process.
            Hide
            spietrowicz Steve Pietrowicz added a comment -

            I believe that was all done in this case (reaching out to those involved).  It can be a bit confusing if someone sees this and doesn't have the entire discussion path, because not all of it's here or in the RFC.

            Show
            spietrowicz Steve Pietrowicz added a comment - I believe that was all done in this case (reaching out to those involved).  It can be a bit confusing if someone sees this and doesn't have the entire discussion path, because not all of it's here or in the RFC.

              People

              • Assignee:
                Unassigned
                Reporter:
                swinbank John Swinbank
                Watchers:
                Hsin-Fang Chiang, Joel Plutchak (Inactive), John Swinbank, Margaret Gelman, Simon Krughoff, Steve Pietrowicz, Tim Jenness
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                7 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:

                  Summary Panel