Dev Chat Summary: October 10 (5.0 Week 2)

This post summarizes the dev chat meeting from October 10th (agenda, Slack archive).

5.0 planning

  • See @pento’s WordPress 5.0 for Contributors and Committers post:
    • “If you’re an experienced contributor or committer who has time available during the WordPress 5.0 release cycle, and want to be able to make meaningful contributions towards making WordPress 5.0 awesome” … “Please reply to this post with information about your availability, what components of WordPress you have experience in, and (if you haven’t got involved with Gutenberg yet) what you feel has been getting in the way.”
    • In that post are some direct actions you can take to help contribute to 5.0, otherwise please review and comment if you’ll be around during the 5.0 release cycle… thanks!
  • Also see review @pento‘s 5.0 commit/branch details if you plan to contribute during the 5.0 release cycle
  • @pento: if you have time to help, please review tickets in the 5.0 milestone to determine whether to keep it in 5.0 (Gutenberg-related), or move to 5.0.1 (other bug fix) or 5.1 (other feature)
  • @kadamwhiterequest for help testing Lazily Evaluate Translation Strings (#41305) with input requested by the end of this working week to help remove the blocker to further Gutenberg localization work
  • Plans for an updated readme.html to be committed with contributions open until RC
  • @chanthaboune: collecting blocker items and dates across team reps, will post listing to Make/Core, if you have items to add to the listing please ping @chanthaboune directly
    • @matt: 5.0 baseline and goal is 4.9.8 + Gutenberg, thus a lot of things that may have been considered blockers in past major releases are probably going to be reclassified as “nice to have”
  • @matveb: last JS package included in the Gutenberg 4.0 RC, on track and could be ready for end of the week

Updates from focus leads and component maintainers

General announcements

  • See @matt‘s post for details on the Gutenberg Phase 2 Leads, @alexislloyd (design and product) and @youknowriad (technical)
    • Phase 2 is about thinking outside the box, namely the post and page box, to allow Gutenberg to handle entire-site layouts. We will replace widgets with blocks, so any block will be able to be used in any registered “sidebar” for legacy themes, and we will upgrade “menus” to a navigation block.
    • Phases 3 and 4 of Gutenberg at WordCamp US in December.
  • @audrasjb: a11y team reorganizing, will discuss during next week’s meeting
  • @chanthaboune: as teams identify new/updated team reps, please follow notes on team rep orientation

Next meeting

The next meeting will take place on October 17, 2018 at 20:00 UTC in the #core Slack channel. Please feel free to drop in with any updates or questions. If you have items to discuss but cannot make the meeting, please leave a comment on this post so that we can take them into account.

#5-0, #a11y, #core, #core-editor, #core-js, #core-media, #core-php, #core-restapi, #dev-chat, #gutenberg, #summary, #team-reps

Team rep nomination/vote

As discussed in the weekly developer meeting, core contributors need to select a representative for the WordPress “team reps.”

There should ideally be two reps: a primary and a secondary/backup.

Primary duties are to post an update weekly on make/updates mentioning what we’re up to (you know, building core), and to meet monthly in IRC with the representatives from other teams (only one of the two reps need to attend). I would look through that blog to get an idea of expectations, and also the minutes from last month’s meeting.

Sometimes other teams will be working on something that affects core (or core should know about it), at which point you are in a perfect position to make sure communication lines are open. Thus, anything that comes up in updates or meetings that other core developers need to know about or act on should be communicated back to the rest of the contributors. This would occur ostensibly during the weekly core dev IRC meeting, or potentially posting to make/core (this blog) for feedback as necessary.

Qualities needed: knowledge of core and core development processes; dedication to following Trac, commit activity, IRC meetings, and make/core; strong communication skills; and an excess of patience.

A rep will serve for three months. After three months, they should be in a position to help pick someone to succeed them, probably in the form of nominating a few people to the group. We should be able to keep this pretty chill; this isn’t meant to be something that requires a board of election supervisors.

The current reps are me and Mike Schroder (@DH-Shredder). Mike and I would not mind continuing our duties, if only because we like to test our own patience/sanity. But we are also happy to step back if someone else wants to step up.

So, to nominate yourself or someone else, please fill out this very simple survey by the end of day Friday (today).


Team Rep

Hi core team! Checking in on the team rep situation — just waiting on core team to pick one for the next three months before getting all the other teams going with theirs (their new ones, I mean; everyone else already chose). It’s been a couple weeks, so would like to get this wrapped up today if possible. I asked Jaquith in -dev just now about the result of the meeting yesterday, and he said: “I believe we were going to let people volunteer themselves or others.nominate, decide, soon.”

If that’s already underway, great, and please let me know later today who you all decided on.

If it’s not really a priority bc core development is taking up all the prioritized brain activity, may I suggest @dh-shredder? When Scribu bowed out last time, we all agreed for Shredder to replace him, but though I talked to him about it at WC San Diego and then posted his name on the team reps page on the make/updates blog, I apparently forgot to post a formal announcement. So if no one is feeling an urgent desire to step up and write weekly updates and relay news back and forth, maybe Shredder would be willing to take the 3-month term, formally this time?

Anyone you guys decide is fine, but please do decide today.


Team Reps

Heya. Now that we know Mark will be the release lead for 3.6, on with team rep voting results. 🙂
Part of why I wanted to wait was because the people with the most votes were Nacin and Jaquith, and I suspected Jaquith would be leading 3.6 (so he shouldn’t be team rep also, per earlier discussions).

Core team reps: @nacin and @scribu. Woohoo!

Term begins with the new year and goes through June.


Went to tally team rep votes and only…

Went to tally team rep votes and only 9 people voted, none of whom had actually contributed to core. I
I just re-opened the voting survey. If anyone who does actually contribute to core wants to vote for team reps, please do it today. I’ll close the voting again tomorrow. Thanks!


Team Reps for Core Team

I was going to wait until after 3.5 came out to post this, but since you all have the weekend free now, might as well take advantage of it, right? Time to vote for team reps again!

Right now there are 8 team reps for core team. Count ’em, 8! (Counting them: Boren, Jaquith, Nacin, Koop, Aaron Campbell, Scribu, DH-Shredder, and Helen). We need to whittle that down to 2 so that there’s more balance with the other contributor groups. Much simpler voting this time around: just write down the names of the two people you’d like to see as team rep. From now on we’ll be doing these votes every 6 months so we can share the responsibilities and continue to grow new leaders.

Consider before you vote:

  • People you vote for should WANT to be the team rep, since there are responsibilities involved. People willing to do the job can help voters by leaving a comment on this post saying they are interested in being a team rep this term.
  • Team reps should not already be responsible for another group (and realistically, probably shouldn’t be the release lead, but that’s hard to guess at since the 6 months between team rep votes isn’t the same as the time frame for release cycles).

Easy-peasy, yeah? Voting will end on December 15, so vote before then, please.

Here’s a big, easy-to-spot link to the voting survey!

Longer explanation of team reps, why we’re voting now, etc after the jump if you don’t know the background or weren’t around when we did team reps before.

Continue reading


Team Reps

A few weeks ago I put up a survey for each of the contributor teams, with the goal of identifying a rep (or reps) for each contributing group. In most cases I lined up a primary rep and a backup. For core contributors it was a little different, because we have sub-groups within our group (which is also about 5 times larger than the next biggest contributor group, the theme reviewers).

In the survey for core contributors, I asked how many reps you thought core should get to ensure that each core contrib constituency would be represented. Choices ranged from 2 to 4, in varying configurations. There was no overwhelming winner for this question. There were many votes for 4, 3, and 2, though some configurations had more votes than others. I removed the votes from people who have not actually contributed to core, but it was still a pretty even split. That said, across each of the configurations, the same people tending to be chosen for the 1 and 2 spots.

Based on the votes, I propose that the core team rep group be made up of Mark Jaquith, Andrew Nacin, Aaron Campbell, and Helen Hou-Sandi, with their backups being Ryan Boren, Daryl Koopersmith, Cristi Burca (scribu), and Mike Schroder (DH-Shredder) respectively.

The primary responsibility of being a rep will be participating in a monthly chat with other contributor group reps starting in May, and communicating things between that group and this one. Backup reps can attend the chat if they wish but are not obligated to do so, unless the primary rep says they can’t make it. Since the core team will have multiple reps, we can work out details later like who’ll post what where and how to get feedback from the people they’re meant to represent.

Thanks to everyone who participated!

#collaboration, #survey, #team-reps