Topics for Brno F2F meeting

PR review process is fundamentally broken, how can we fix it?

@Dmitry Belyavsky From some distance this statement sounds stark; could you be slightly more specific? Also, this sounds like an issue going beyond "individuals"... Wouldn't "Committers" be the right community to deal with that?

That said, there's been an example of a "suboptimal" PR review incident I have been personally involved in and that does point to "room for improvement", particularly for truly individual contributors motivated by, well, a community (of other individuals giving timely feedback): https://openssl-communities.org/d/dpuCvbRz/post-quantum-cryptography-pqc-group-recommendations-for-tls-1-3/20

Here's a proposal for discussion (maybe not just, but also) in Brno:

Consider publishing a(n interactive) dashboard making it simple for Individuals to pick (and organize) new contributions.

Background: Unlike members of the other communities (working employed/paid by large and small companies, distros or "committer-funding" organizations with more clearly defined teams, cooperations and goals), Individuals have very, well, individual, "availability capabilities" (and limitations): Short- and long-term "free" time; interest to work in teams (or not); professional background & interest; etc.

Just looking at (currently) 1200 open GH issues to pick work from is daunting to say the least. Wouldn't it be nice if one could "slice-and-dice" these possible open work items along different dimensions (beyond text and GH tags)? Things like "best (done) by date"; a rough complexity indicator; a possible co-workers list for more complex issues where one may find interested team mates (a "would-work-on-this-if-someone-else-would-team-up" feature); a "sponsoring committer" (i.e., a "guaranteed reviewer" for a PR resolving the issue, avoiding stale PRs/lost contributor motivation); possible dependencies; possible prereqs? Surely more dimensions to slice-and-dice are conceivable.

The availability of such dashboard might entice more people to find (and tackle) work items the core team(s) cannot handle; individual pace and capability could be matched to overall project demands, all the while ensuring uptake, giving new contributors a more simple way to begin contributing. If this were working, it could also provide a way to the core teams to more easily publish "ancillary" work items (that may become relevant in some future but that they don't have the bandwidth to tackle right now) "to the world" to possibly (trigger) help with.

If such system were in place, it could be fed with some more information than just the current GH tags as and when a new issue is triaged without too much incremental effort. For existing issues, it may be an idea to ask Committers which ones they'd particularly like to see someone else work on (and are then/thus agreeing to review as/if a PR comes in). On other old issues, maybe have an AI make proposals how to rate them along the dimensions above for "slicing-and-dicing".

And Yes, this is not a "Corporation-only" proposal -- thus tagging @Igor Ustinov and @Randall Becker too (side proposal: Introduce a handle all-individual-committee-reps).