changes w/ nemanja

docs/engineering/conventions/pr-reviewing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# Reviewing PRs
+
+> Some guidelines and pointers on how to review PRs effectively.
+
+## A culture for reviewing
+
+A few tips to review effectively:
+
+- **Proposals > Discussions > Feelings**
+    - Use this hierarchy to decide how to best make a PR review comment.
+    - A proposal shares the work of "figuring it out" with the author. If using GitHub's ["suggestions" feature](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/incorporating-feedback-in-your-pull-request), the changes can be applied immediately by the author.
+- **Don't take reviews personally,** and make reviews on the code rather than the author.
+- It's OK to ask for clarification when things are unclear.
+    - Don't feel that you need to make a fully in-depth review and that you are stupid because you don't understand it at first glance. Giving the full context of the pull request is the responsibility of the author, together with writing documentation and tests.
+    - If a PR lacks sufficient explanation of what has been changed, asking the author to explain themselves is perfectly acceptable.
+- Prefer reaching consensus over voting.
+    - Adopting the "Proposals > Discussions > Feelings", try to reach consensus when in conflict over a code change. This means either trying to convince each other using objective metrics, or trying to find a middleground solution that can satisfy both point of views.
+- Don't [bikeshed](https://bikeshed.com/).
+    - Creating long-winded discussions on trivial topics is really common. Try to recognise when the change you're requesting relates to an objective impact or is purely esthetical.
+    - For code formatting and practices, prefer introducing linters and formatting rules separately rather than discussing them in a PR.
+- Reviews are a way to learn.
+    - Don't be afraid to review components of code you don't have full knowledge about. It can help you get better knowledge of how that component works.
+    - Learning what other people are doing and how they are doing it can give you new insights into solving problems. It can also help you build a better mental map of how the whole system works.
+- Prefer asking for asking an in-depth description, rather than scheduling a call.
+    - Other reviewers might have your same doubts. It's good if the answers you're given are as such out for everyone to see.
+    - Documentation and tests are also good places to put long-term information!
+- [Humanizing Reviews](https://www.processimpact.com/articles/humanizing_reviews.pdf) is a nice read.

docs/engineering/conventions/pr-triage.md

@@ -1,27 +1,18 @@
+# Pull Request Triage
+
+> A process to organise the incoming reviews of PRs and create a system to
+> effectively manage, week after week, all our ongoing work and ensure a swift
+> feedback loop.
+
 ## Background
 
 - We have a linearly-growing number of PRs. We are not doing enough to catch up on the work that is being done; as such, a lot of high-quality code gets stuck in review forever.
 - When code is stuck in review for long, many PRs are "dropped" by the author due to lack of interest or shift of focus. This is exasperated when looking at external contributions.
 - The work of reviewing PRs is not evenly distributed among the team
     - This is not so much an issue per se (some enjoy more the discussions, some more drilling on code), but the imbalance is very large and the onus of reviewing is felt more like a chore even by those who actively engage in it.
 
-### Some stats
-
-These are ideas for useful stats which illustrate the problem right now; I know of no tool which would let me pick them up, but I'm trying to figure out to get them because it would also help us see the difference after imlpementing this process.
-
-- (open PRs - draft - closed PRs over time)
-- weekly PRs done per team member (anonymised)
-- average/median time for first and second review
-- number of reviews received per PR (internal / external)
-- time-to-completion internal/external percentiles
-- feedback loop (time between author event (create / ready_for_review, commit, force-push) --> review/close) percentiles
-
 ---
 
-# Pull Request Triage
-
-> A process to organise the incoming reviews of PRs and create a system to effectively manage, week after week, all of our open work and efficiently review it.
-
 ## Objective
 
 - Lower the time required for the feedback loop to at most 1 week for the biggest PRs, and 3-4 days for the regular ones.
@@ -32,7 +23,7 @@ These are ideas for useful stats which illustrate the problem right now; I know
 ## Process
 
 - Every week, 2 members of [gno tech staff](https://github.com/orgs/gnolang/teams/tech-staff) are assigned to do PR triage for that week.
-- **REQUIRED:** Triage and first-review each incoming PR (= new, or moved from draft to ready, without a review):
+- Triage and first-review each incoming PR (= new ready PR, or moved from draft to ready):
     - Place it in the correct milestone
     - Make corrections for clarity in the title, description and label
     - **Make a first PR review**, as in-depth as you can but deferring where you lack the expertise.
@@ -43,36 +34,27 @@ These are ideas for useful stats which illustrate the problem right now; I know
     - Place the PR in the correct column in the Pull Requests board.
     - _Prioritise community pull requests,_ because they are not paid they lose interest 10x faster.
     - **Prioritise this part of the process over any software development for the duration of the triage week.**
-- Work through the backlog and merge PRs
-    - Prioritise the following:
-        - Open PRs over Draft PRs
-        - PRs that don't have any reviews yet
-        - PRs by "least recently updated"
-    - For each of these, ensure that they are in the correct column for the "Pull Requests" column.
-    - Ping any reviewers that are blocking the PR (you are also encouraged to batch these with other requests if possible, see the "Ping team members" section later).
-    - Don't be afraid to merge if all outstanding issues are solved.
-        - For most PRs, we follow the convention of "requiring 2 approvals". (If, however, the PR is so minor and obviously correct, e.g. typo fixes, don't wait for a second reviewer).
-        - If a PR has a stale (2mo+) "changes required" review which has been entirely acted upon, you can always _dismiss it_ through the GitHub UI (try contacting the reviewer, first).
-- Prepare the review meeting and lead it
+- Prepare the agenda for the review meeting
     - The review meeting has the primary purpose of acting upon the following kind of PRs:
         - Those that need a "philosophical", collective or executive decision in order to move forward.
         - Those that can be easily unblocked by the meeting (ie. gathering knowledge / checking with the team nothing has been missed)
     - Before the GitHub review meeting, work through the PRs you've discussed and viewed this week, both incoming and the ones in the backlog.
     - Add them to the "Review Meeting" column on GitHub and re-order them to make sure that the most important ones are at the top.
         - This serves as the "agenda" for the meeting; anyone can add items, but it is your responsibility to ensure to prioritize them. (If you're up to speed on most PRs, this can take as little as 15 minutes, before the call)
     - Make sure to know the context for the PRs in the review column, so that you can briefly introduce the changes via voice before kicking off its discussion.
-- Ping team members
-    - Ping each team member with 2 PRs each week where their review is requested (preferring those which seem more adequate depending on the teammate's expertise area). Do this _individually, in Direct Messages_.
-    - You are encouraged to do this on Thursdays, where you'll have seen most of the incoming PRs for the week and have had time to go through the backlog, and team members can be encouraged to review PRs ahead of the meeting. (If you're in the US, consider doing this Wednesday afternoon)
-        - NOTE: following comments, this may be switched up to monday/tuesday (and the other day as a consequence)
-    - A summary of reviews requested for each team member should be posted on the [review meetings minutes](https://github.com/gnolang/meetings/issues/18); then cross-posted on Gno-Tech-Staff on Signal/Slack, for visibility among the team members.
-    - You are also encouraged to send a reminder on Monday for any outstanding PR reviews requested by the triagers the previous week which are still pending.
-    - If a team member still has to address review comments on their own PRs, remind them, too.
+	- Morgan and Nemanja are available as alternative leads if neither is comfortable with leading it. However, preparing the agenda and being available to give context on the discussed PRs is still the responsibility of those on rotation. (TODO)
+	- TODO: Move general rules on how to prepare the agenda for the review meeting to pr-reviewing.md
+- Use the Core Team board to see the status on other PRs and ongoing work,
+	coordinate with Nemanja on which ones to ask for status updates (TODO).
 
 ### A typical week
 
 Use this as a practical example of how things could work. This is not authoritative and meant as an example to organise the week and triaging work with your colleague :)
 
+<details><summary>It is very long, so it's collapsed</summary>
+
+TODO: Update this with the amended parts of the process, make it less verbose.
+
 - **The friday before the triage week**, Alice and Bob message each other, deciding on mansions:
     - Alice will read through the incoming PRs, and judge what she can review and send to Bob what he should review. She will also ping the team members on Monday for any pending reviews for the previous week.
     - Bob will read through the backlog of existing PRs, check out what needs love and care and send to Alice what she should review. He will also be drafting the new round of PR suggestions to be sent off on Thursday.
@@ -102,6 +84,8 @@ Use this as a practical example of how things could work. This is not authoritat
     - It has been a long week. A couple PRs rolled in from an Asian partner; Alice sends one to Bob and reviews the other. They are still in draft, so they do mostly a preliminary review, and make sure to understand what the partners are trying to accomplish.
     - Aside from that, Alice and Bob spend the rest of the day writing some good ol' code, and looking forward to the weekend.
 
+</details>
+
 ### Planning the rotation
 
 - Managers are in charge of planning the rotation. Two weeks before the end of each "full cycle", managers will post the rotation for the following N/2 weeks (the "full cycle", where N = number of team members).
@@ -128,31 +112,26 @@ There are a good amount of existing tools you can use to oversee incoming PRs.
 - Make sure to communicate regularly with your co-triager. Suggestions:
     - Check out the above example for an example of a "workflow" with your co-triager.
     - If you need a hand figuring out the agenda for the review meeting, ping Morgan.
-- Graphite
-    - Graphite is a tool for PR reviews, suggested by Guillhem. You may enjoy it for its UI in reviewing PRs; however, it can prove useful also to have something similar to a UI for the "Incoming" and "Backlog" PRs.
-    - Some WIP configurations: [Triage (Incoming)](https://app.graphite.dev/?new-section=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%3D) | [Backlog](https://app.graphite.dev/?new-section=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)
-        - Please feel free to improve them and suggest changes!
-
-## A culture for reviewing
-
-A few tips to review effectively:
-
-- **Proposals > Discussions > Feelings**
-    - Use this hierarchy to decide how to best make a PR review comment.
-    - A proposal shares the work of "figuring it out" with the author. If using GitHub's ["suggestions" feature](https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/incorporating-feedback-in-your-pull-request), the changes can be applied immediately by the author.
-- **Don't take reviews personally,** and make reviews on the code rather than the author.
-- It's OK to ask for clarification when things are unclear.
-    - Don't feel that you need to make a fully in-depth review and that you are stupid because you don't understand it at first glance. Giving the full context of the pull request is the responsibility of the author, together with writing documentation and tests.
-    - If a PR lacks sufficient explanation of what has been changed, asking the author to explain themselves is perfectly acceptable.
-- Prefer reaching consensus over voting.
-    - Adopting the "Proposals > Discussions > Feelings", try to reach consensus when in conflict over a code change. This means either trying to convince each other using objective metrics, or trying to find a middleground solution that can satisfy both point of views.
-- Don't [bikeshed](https://bikeshed.com/).
-    - Creating long-winded discussions on trivial topics is really common. Try to recognise when the change you're requesting relates to an objective impact or is purely esthetical.
-    - For code formatting and practices, prefer introducing linters and formatting rules separately rather than discussing them in a PR.
-- Reviews are a way to learn.
-    - Don't be afraid to review components of code you don't have full knowledge about. It can help you get better knowledge of how that component works.
-    - Learning what other people are doing and how they are doing it can give you new insights into solving problems. It can also help you build a better mental map of how the whole system works.
-- Prefer asking for asking an in-depth description, rather than scheduling a call.
-    - Other reviewers might have your same doubts. It's good if the answers you're given are as such out for everyone to see.
-    - Documentation and tests are also good places to put long-term information!
-- [Humanizing Reviews](https://www.processimpact.com/articles/humanizing_reviews.pdf) is a nice read.
+
+### Actions
+
+- Start an initial cycle to experiment with this process and improve it \
+	@kouteki
+- Set up Monocle for stats tracking on the effectiveness on the process \
+	@thehowl
+- Change "Pull Requests" Project to "Review Meeting" Project, remove automations
+	and only add PRs to be discussed in the meeting. \
+	@kouteki
+
+### TODO: Stats
+
+These are ideas for useful stats which illustrate the problem right now; I know of no tool which would let me pick them up, but I'm trying to figure out to get them because it would also help us see the difference after imlpementing this process.
+
+Proposed tool for stats: https://github.com/change-metrics/monocle
+
+- (open PRs - draft - closed PRs over time)
+- weekly PRs done per team member (anonymised)
+- average/median time for first and second review
+- number of reviews received per PR (internal / external)
+- time-to-completion internal/external percentiles
+- feedback loop (time between author event (create / ready_for_review, commit, force-push) --> review/close) percentiles