#33 Proposal for CentOS Stream Feature Request SIG
Closed 2 years ago by rbowen. Opened 2 years ago by amoloney.

The purpose of this SIG will be to serve as a gate for feature requests that are first developed in CentOS Stream from contributors who wish to request these features to be included in future RHEL releases and are then filed in bugzilla. The SIGs overall goal is to make sure that features which have been filed and have technical merit are triaged internally to the correct venue for further review and development. The SIG will take ownership of regular bugzilla reviews filed under Stream and map feature requests from these bugzillas against the formal RHEL Feature Request criteria to identify and file qualifying requests inside Red Hat to achieve this.

Provide an entrypoint for features coming from external contributors to request features based on technical merit, developed and verified in CentOS Stream, to be filed as a feature request for the next RHEL release.

What's in Scope
Weekly bugzilla triaging based on CentOS Stream filing
Review potential feature requests against existing RHEL feature request criteria
Engaging with external feature requesters to clarify and refine requirements if the feature meets the criteria
Create a RHEL Feature request for the external requestor based on qualifying criteria in Jira
Make jira ticket public to allow external requestor visibility on progress and provide feedback to development team
Provide a feedback loop to feature requestor on ticket progress
Updates to documentation on CentOS Stream contributor guide to reflect this process & provide step by step guide for filing Features

Whats out of Scope
Direct ownership of feature delivery once accepted in RHEL development
Provide a clear and accessible process for external contributors to engage in to file Feature requests for RHEL through CentOS Stream
Provide a space for open and transparent decision making on Feature Requests for RHEL through the CentOS Stream project
Regular communication with the wider CentOS Project on status of requests - what has been rejected & why and what has been accepted and why

Administrative Duties
Meeting place, cadence, Time & Day

IRC - #centos-stream
Weekly, 1500 UTC+1 on Tuesdays
Feature Filing
Bugzilla is the first stop. Features need to be filed here with a note in ‘additional information’ that this is a proposed Feature Request for RHEL
Feature candidates are mapped against RHEL Feature Request Criteria in a jira ticket under the following headers:
Feature Description
User Benefits
Use Case/Proof of Concept/Partial Development demo
The jira ticket is set to public and added to the CentOS Stream development board
Features are linked to a Market Problem (where applicable)
Request Tracking
Bugzilla Update - original BZ should be updated with jira ticket link and a comment added if needed
Jira ticket update - requester should be tagged in the ticket to allow them follow progress
Weekly email to centos-devel updating the project of BZs that have been picked up as feature requests
Continuous updates to documentation on Stream outlining Feature Request process to external contributors
Proposed Initial Members
The following people are the proposed initial members of the SIG based on areas of expertise and value they can provide to developing this process. The membership of this SIG is subject to change and approval.

Brian Stinson - CentOS Stream Architect
Josh Boyer - RHEL Product Owner
Rich Bowen - CentOS Community Architect
Aoife Moloney - CentOS Stream Product Owner
Kyle Walker - Product Experience, RHEL
Brian Exelbierd - Community Business Owner, RHEL BU

Link to wiki of above proposal https://wiki.centos.org/SpecialInterestGroup/StreamFeatureRequest

This is brilliant! Thanks to all for the initiative in this idea, overall it looks good.

Your initial membership doesn't include a non-Red Hat person, I take it to mean therefore that Rich is to carry the burden of being the voice of/for the rest of the community? I can see on the face of this it is RHEL-process heavy and full of insider boringness; it might also have discussions that are non-community i.e. product recommendations and decisions.

So it could make sense to not have organizational diversity in this SIG, that's up to your vision. Whatever the case, can you add some bits to the proposal to clarify and include:

  • An clear explanation for the current make-up of the SIG membership.
  • Maybe expand beyond the sentence, "The membership of this SIG is subject to change and approval," to list some of the ideas of how it might change, such as if it would ever have non-RH members and what that might look like.
  • If you do intend to have non-RH members, maybe tweak some of the language such as in the Purpose section that implies one must be a Red Hat insider to perform on this SIG. For example, you can list the parts of the decision process a non-RH person can get involved in, even if they can't flip all the Buigzilla flags or walk the human process internally.

All of this may be implied in between the lines already, just would be good to have it out front.

Thanks again for working to provide a clear process for people to get features into CentOS Stream.

Hi @quaid ! Thank you for the feedback and support. Im happy to address your questions and provide more clarity on the proposed SIG makeup.

Re non-Red Hatters not being on the members list - I really hope this will be only temporary! The SIG membership will be open to anyone who has an interest in making sure features flowing through from Stream into the RHEL process. I completely agree with you on the idea of having non-Red Hatters in this SIG to offer different perspectives on requests this SIG would be triaging. It would be very valuable to have!
Fair warning though, this SIGs primary responsibilities will be admin-heavy - there is 'paperwork' to complete to make sure a feature is properly scoped and follows the correct submission process, so this SIG will carry out those duties with the requestor. This might not be everyone's idea of fun but this SIG is open to everyone who wants to get involved :)
Im happy to adjust the proposal to reflect that better and I really do hope there is a desire to become a member of this SIG from community members if approved and once formed.

Thank you for the feedback, will take it on board and implement it in the proposal!

This proposal was approved in the 5/12 board meeting.

Metadata Update from @rbowen:
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

2 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.