Make release management commitment clearer
(Detached from #223 (closed).)
@felipe_artur got picked as a release manager for 11.1, but this was after the kickoff (i.e. after we'd already agreed what we are working on in 11.1). I am assuming that this is an exceptional case and won't happen again, but I think there are a few things we can do to improve the process:
- Clarify what someone's expected availability is. I spoke to @filipa about capacity, and it sounds like @felipe_artur will still be able to work mostly as normal until we get close to the first RC on 1 July, when his release management duties really kick in. (Thanks @filipa!)
- Because the 'release management month' doesn't overlap with the 'development month', we should also define this in terms of development months, so we can still schedule issues appropriately.
- This will also help with things like https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/reaction/ - @felipe_artur is also on that for 11.2 (so maybe I shouldn't have volunteered him).
- Explicitly define the pool of potential release managers. Which teams are expected to provide RMs, and how often?
- (Bonus.) Don't ask people to volunteer, pick randomly. Asking for volunteers incentivises people to not respond. I thought @rspeicher worded this really well in #223 (comment 76282548), but despite that, five of the eight people mentioned at the start of that message did not respond publicly.
@marin @rspeicher @jameslopez @mayra-cabrera @filipa I'd love to hear what you think here.