Datasets:

giseldo

/

neodataset

like 1

2021-07-19 21:01:17.510

August 2021 Key Review PI Prep

Items to review/change before August 2021 Key Meeting: - [ ] Looking to have handbook PI page as storyboard approach, order KPI/PI in order that makes most sense (most-> least important for department head or other logical ordering) - [ ] add DRI attribute to PIs? - [x] Write Comments on KPI changes - [x] correcting data to reflect more accurate total cost for hosting with removal of the one time credits & offsets - [x] introduced PI for % of labeled spend for cost visibility - [x] make overview video -> include DRIs in video for updates?

2021-07-19 16:49:24.289

Update Availability graph - June 2021 data

The observability issue we were seeing last week in relation to the last month reporting for Availability has been resolved. June availability was 99.84% https://dashboards.gitlab.net/d/general-slas/general-slas?orgId=1&from=now-1M%2FM&to=now-1M%2FM Please update this in the availability csv and reflect it in the chart. I don't seem to have perms to do this after the changes to get the 2 decimal points showing. Also, the display on https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/infrastructure/performance-indicators/#gitlabcom-availability only shows to March, even though the April and May data should already be in the csv.

2021-07-12 19:18:46.010

Remove Top 3 oldest open vulnerabilities by severity PI

- Consider this as a duplicate of a new "Open Vulnerability Age" metric & get rid of this as a PI - Recommend keeping the linked chart as part of new vulnerability age dashboard as it's a useful view - use average instead of median for "Open Vulnerability Age" calculation if want to prioritize old vulnerability more

2021-07-12 19:15:33.355

Security Automation Iteration Velocity PI

As issues can vary a lot in how much work they are, would this be better as using weights with weighting methodology instead of issues? - probably better unless trying to make team members create issues that are as broken down as possible - I would consider Security Automation Iteration Velocity Average as a duplicate & only use 1 of them as the PI

2021-07-12 19:11:28.081

SecAuto OKR/epic progress PI change

- Does OKR progress need to be tracked as PI? already tracked as a OKR in Ally right? - For epics, I don't think this fits in as a PI since epics are constantly being opened so would never reach 100% target. - I would suggest removing this altogether as a PI, but keep dashboard for tracking if want to see that view - Other KPi/PI should represent goals of the department, PIs represent tracking towards those goals, & epics will represent progress towards those metrics/goals. So a PI for epic progress is redundant

2021-07-12 19:09:01.738

Third Party Risk Management PI

Bring in data & create PI as # of medium/high risk vendors over time, with target of 0?

2021-07-12 19:06:32.913

Security Observations (Tier 3 Risks) PI

Could we bring this data into Sisense & create metric that is just count of these as bar/line chart & then provide details in the dashboard?

2021-07-12 19:04:33.061

Operational Security Risk (Tier 2 Risks) Management PI

Currently a heatmap, could we bring this data into Sisense & choose a normal bar/line chart visualization instead while still capturing the important data?

2021-07-09 18:25:06.907

Remove Secure Software Dependency Program Maturity PI

Can we recreate this dataset & chart in Sisense & link to that instead of linking to a google slides presentation?

2021-07-09 18:18:25.867

SIRT Incidents PI changes

Seems like we have multiple PIs/KPIs around SIRT incidents: - Security Engineer On-Call Page Volume (Security Incidents that required paging someone) - Security Incidents by Category - ~~Security Incidents by Impacted Organization~~ I propose we keep the KPI, remove the other as PI, & move all these charts to new "Security Incidents" standalone dashboard to provide this detail. Question: Do we really need these to be standalone PIs, or do we just want to be able to see them readily?

2021-07-09 18:10:58.238

Cost of Abuse KPI

- [x] Define KPI - [x] Which categories to include as part of cost of abuse? - [x] CI + Networking (egress to China + APAC for now) - [x] For CI quantify blocked abuse usage + some measure of human time

2021-07-09 18:03:39.747

Security Control Health KPI

Any way we can track this data over time & have it in Sisense/ data warehouse? Is this tracked in a spreadsheet somewhere? Current KPI: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/security/performance-indicators/#security-control-health Examples for redesign: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_-Bm_vVLPNts1xmshNjH2NDN3GjLPxJGyBreh0uqQYk/edit?usp=sharing

2021-07-09 17:58:42.588

Security Engineer On-Call Page Volume KPI change

- [ ] <s> add target (consider making target logic simpler, maybe just 50% over avg of last 12 months)</s> No target because it's a stacked bar chart. - [ ] <s> add Sisense chart embed if not confidential, otherwise note confidential </s> This is mentioned in the KPI description `For Security purposes, please view this chart directly in Sisense.` - [X] kpi definition mentions severity, anything we should consider about differing severity for this KPI? - [x] match KPI naming with chart name in Sisense https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/security/performance-indicators/#security-engineer-on-call-page-volume https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/592612/Security-KPIs?widget=9217413&udv=0

2021-07-09 17:52:53.007

Avg Age of Vulnerability KPI change

- [x] Change Avg Age of Vulnerability to match OBA logic https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/performance-indicators/#s1-oba - [x] Alternatively, if mainly want to track towards SLO, consider changing to # open vulnerabilities past SLO (similar to corrective actions past SLO) - [x] if metric needs to be confidential add confidential note, if not add sisensechart embed

2021-07-09 16:41:48.535

Create % labeled spend PI

In order to maintain accurate visibility into our cloud costs as we scale, we need to make sure we are labeling/tagging resources according to our standards: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/infrastructure-standards/ for the majority of our spend so that we can accurately forecast & tie back costs to actionable buckets of spend.

2021-07-08 18:47:41.924

Pricing page code cleanup v1

## Before creating an issue - [x] I have reviewed the [Setting yourself up for success](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/digital-experience/website/#requesting-support) section of the website handbook. - [x] I acknowledge that any content updates should also update [social media content](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/admin/#data-needed-on-pages-in-order-for-links-to-work-on-social-media) such as [images](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/#social-media-design), titles, and descriptions on relevant pages. Not doing this can negatively impact related campaigns. ## Where would this project happen? #### Insert here a bulleted list containing any URLs that we'll be updating or creating: - https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ ## What does the request INCLUDE? #### Insert the request here: - Remove unused code/experiments

2021-07-08 16:49:20.825

Incorporate GItLab Incident Severities into issues dbt model

Once `issuable_severities` base model is in dbt, need to use that severity field in main `issues_xf` model to bring that in. Logic will basically look like a CASE statement where it pulls from `issuable_severities` severity field first if they exist, & if not then tried to use current label method. That should bring in severities for both GitLab Incidents & GitLab Issues in same model

2021-07-08 16:45:38.876

add issuable_severities table to Data warehouse

As part of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/11978 we need to bring a new table `issuable_severities` into the data warehouse to get the right severity values for GitLab Incidents - [x] add to manifest - [x] create source tables - [x] create base model

2021-07-07 02:40:52.107

Pricing page updates

## Before creating an issue - [x] I have reviewed the [Setting yourself up for success](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/digital-experience/website/#requesting-support) section of the website handbook. - [x] I acknowledge that any content updates should also update [social media content](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/admin/#data-needed-on-pages-in-order-for-links-to-work-on-social-media) such as [images](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/#social-media-design), titles, and descriptions on relevant pages. Not doing this can negatively impact related campaigns. ## Where would this project happen? #### Insert here a bulleted list containing any URLs that we'll be updating or creating: - https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ ## What does the request INCLUDE? #### Insert the request here: - Change "FREE" to "Free" on mobile. - Remove brackets around text. - Add clarity that CI/CD minutes are for SaaS Only (tooltips, content changes).

2021-07-06 17:20:10.285

fix exec summary links for inherited PIs

executive summary links are broken for Inherited PIs now that URLs are reverted to how they were previously (changed in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/82711)

2021-06-29 22:02:56.263

Rename Vacancy Time to Fill KPI

From Eric's feedback in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84142#note_614685642, rename Vacancy Time to Fill KPI to "Average Age of Open Vacancies" - [ ] Renamed Metric for `Engineering Division` https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85641 - [ ] Renamed Metric for ~"Customer Support Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85639 - [ ] Renamed Metric for ~"Development Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85637 - [ ] Renamed Metric for ~"Infrastructure Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85252 - [ ] Renamed Metric for ~"Quality Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85826 - [ ] Renamed Metric for ~"UX Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85827 - [ ] Renamed Metric for ~"Security Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85830

2021-06-29 17:15:34.070

remove inherited badge

remove inherited badge next to KPI titles

2021-06-29 00:33:31.659

Add Incubation to team page

Add Incubation Department to team page.

2021-06-24 19:33:14.630

Create a Channel Instant Marketing handbook page

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/partner-marketing/-/issues/353

2021-06-24 16:21:02.527

Ensure all KPI charts/dashboards are set to auto refresh

Ensure all KPI charts/dashboards are set to auto-refresh for monthly key/group conversations. Open a separate data team issue. Engineering Division 1. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/620621/Engineering-Handbook-MR-Rate 2. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/686926/Engineering-Division-MR-Rate 3. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/842240/Engineering-Division-New-Hire-Location-Factor-Shared-Dashboard 4. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/864877/Team-Member-Retention-Dashboard 5. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/872394/Average-Age-of-Open-Positions Development Department 1. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/899982/InfraDev 2. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/761256/Largest-Contentful-Paint-at-P90 3. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/705845/Renewal-Customer-Satisfaction 4. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/862325/Development-Department-Retention 5. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/929641/Development-Department-Average-Age-of-Open-Positions 6. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/871128/Open-MR-Review-Time-(OMRT) Quality Department 1. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/516343/Quality-Department-KPIs 2. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/862331/Quality-Department-Retention 3. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/856737/S1-Open-Bug-Age-(OBA) 4. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/856747/S2-Open-Bug-Age-(OBA) 5. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/878780/Time-to-first-failure-(TtFF) 6. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/872455/Open-Community-MR-Age-(OCMA) UX Department 1. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/462325/UX-KPIs 2. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/882285/Product-Design-MRs 3. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/862334/UX-Department-Retention Security Department 1. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/641782/Appsec-KPIs 2. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/592612/Security-KPIs 3. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/847984/ZenGRC-Point-in-Time-Screenshots-(Interim-Dashboard) 4. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/780726/WIP:-Blocked-User-Usage-Data 5. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/862338/Security-Department-Retention Support Department 1. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/463858/Engineering-KPIs 2. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/855241/Customer-Wait-Time-Ratio 3. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/862336/Support-Department-Retention 4. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/686943/Support-Department-MR-Rate 5. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/621060/Support-Handbook-MR-Rate Incubation Department 1. https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/908949/Incubation-Engineering-Department-MR-Rate

2021-06-24 13:37:56.838

Experiment - Pricing page: Reverse plan tiers

* Reverse tiers so "Ultimate" is first and "Free" is last. * Using LaunchDarkly (AB testing tool), track conversion rate.

2021-06-23 20:05:46.418

Create a "Confidential" Health state for PIs

## Summary With a increasing emphasis on correctly maintaining confidential information many of the Infrastructure PIs no longer indicate [health status](https://0623-sloyd-infra-pi.about.gitlab-review.app/handbook/engineering/infrastructure/performance-indicators/#health), but by doing so the status defaults to "Unknown".  This is confusing though as there is a difference between what we really intend when we show status Unknown vs. when it is actually known but just can't be displayed due to confidentiality. ## Proposal - Create a "Confidential" Health status with appropriate icon...(maybe transparent background with black text so as not to imply anything via other coloring?) - Update the Health legend in the template for all PIs - Review all Eng department PIs for those which should switch to use the new status ## Actions - [ ] Discuss among Engineering Data Analytics and Eng Dept heads to validate the problem. - [ ] Eng Data Analytics represents the proposal to other Divisions - [ ] Implement above proposal (or the iteration we arrive at)

2021-06-23 18:41:48.412

Ensure we capture the next steps for PIs with health attention and problem

From the recent Key Reviews, > For the items that are noted as a problem or attention, can you include get well plan, actions taken from the last meeting and lessons learned. If it helps, I could provide a template for this. Thanks. Purpose is that a lot of people on the call can learn from what y’all are doing. From feedback in my 1-1 factoring this in the the structure would be overkill. The suggestion would be to remind folks to capture next steps in the bullets.

2021-06-18 12:22:50.135

Update middleman to avoid reference through git ref

With !78850 (#10917, gitlab-org&5149) and !73459, we introduced the Git ref to use middleman gem with Ruby 2.7/3.0 support, but the upstream just released 4.4.0 (2021-06-16), so it is time to switch back to the official release. - https://github.com/middleman/middleman/releases/tag/v4.4.0 - https://rubygems.org/gems/middleman/versions/4.4.0

2021-06-17 19:50:54.862

OBA S1 S2 Polishes

* Please make this 2 years - I want to set OBA S1 to green since we improved alot from 2 years ago. When it is 1 year the context is lost. * https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/performance-indicators/#s1-open-bug-age-oba * https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/performance-indicators/#s2-open-bug-age-oba * Also the number of outstanding issue is mismatched between OBA S1 and Average Age https://app.periscopedata.com/shared/ae618b53-194d-40ed-a3ca-7f0d4ca9a492? | Previous | Current | | ------ | ------ | |  |  |

2021-06-16 21:08:21.424

Non headcount budget PI is stale

From UX Key Review, we discovered that the non-headcount budget PI is stale. Clarify broadly for all PIs ## Tasks * Data is in Adaptive hence all charts are stale * This data is confidential hence directed to Sisense for `target` * Set `health` to unknown * Link tracking issue in PI description https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/11464 * Addresses https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/11970 ## MRs * Engineering https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85248 * ~"UX Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84607 * ~"Quality Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85245 * ~"Development Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85249 * ~"Security Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85253 * ~"Customer Support Department" (dashboard deleted) https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85251 * ~"Infrastructure Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85252 cc @gl-quality/eng-analytics

2021-06-16 20:41:22.301

Standardize all KPI's current month's bar to have a different color

- From June 2021 UX Key review Purple bar for TW MR Rate for current month - This helps reduce back/forth between stakeholders, not having this differentiation leads to a false sense of urgency when we don't have all the data for the current month - We have a guideline to have this as optional https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/metrics/#guidelines. ## Proposal - Standardize green bar for current month for all KPIs | Current | Desired | | ------ | ------ | |  |  | ### Challenges - Team implements this via 2 code sections and is the equivalent of creating 2 charts into 1. - Explore helpers - Is there a visualization library that we can plug in ? do it at the visualization level and not the calculation. - render API ? for “color” gives no result, so not looking promising - ask Sisense what’s possible in terms of styling that doesn’t muddy up business logic? ### Completion - [x] Completed for `Engineering Division` KPIs @lmai1 - [x] Completed for `Engineering Division` PIs @lmai1 - [X] Completed for ~"Customer Support Department" KPIs @lmai1 - [X] Completed for ~"Customer Support Department" PIs @lmai1 - [x] Completed for ~"Development Department" KPIs @lmai1 - [x] Completed for ~"Development Department" PIs @lmai1 - [x] Completed for ~"Infrastructure Department" KPIs @davis_townsend - Availability fix being tracked in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/11910 - [x] Completed for ~"Quality Department" KPIs @davis_townsend - [X] Completed for ~"Quality Department" PIs @lmai1 - [x] Completed for ~"Security Department" KPIs @davis_townsend - [X] Completed for ~"UX Department" KPIs @lmai1 - [X] Completed for ~"UX Department" PIs @lmai1

2021-06-15 16:10:19.719

Deprecate Hiring Actuals v Plan

After https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/11418 is closed, we should be able to deprecate hiring actuals v plan metric for all eng departments - [ ] Removed Metric for `Engineering Division` https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85641 - [ ] Removed Metric for ~"Customer Support Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85639 - [ ] Removed Metric for ~"Development Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85637 - [ ] Removed Metric for ~"Infrastructure Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85252 - [ ] Removed Metric for ~"Quality Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85826 - [ ] Removed Metric for ~"UX Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85636 - [ ] Removed Metric for ~"Security Department" https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85635

2021-06-10 19:20:28.018

Promote Retention to KPI for all departments

From weekly team meeting today, as per Eric's feedback we should promote the recently introduced Retention Metric to KPI for each department along with Time to Fill Vacancies - [x] Completed for `Engineering Division` - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84142 - [x] Completed for ~"Customer Support Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84127 - [x] Completed for ~"Development Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84129 - [x] Completed for ~"Infrastructure Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/83163 - [x] Completed for ~"Quality Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84131 - [x] Completed for ~"Security Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84134 - [x] Completed for ~"UX Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84133

2021-06-08 15:31:39.886

Cookie consent script adjustments

Per the related Marketing Ops issue, https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/marketing-operations/-/issues/5018#note_595713842, we need to adjust the javascript responsible for OneTrust to load sooner. I plan to move this logic into the same spot as the cookiebot logic in the includes/layout/head file. This shouldn't negatively impact anything, but since we can only test it on production, it's theoretically possible to break cookiebot or accidentally introduce OneTrust to unexpected pages. I shall carefully monitor the deployment and follow up with regression tests.

2021-06-07 08:42:36.817

Have the 'Knowledge_Design_Collection' route LCP under 4s

[The route's dashboard.](https://dashboards.gitlab.net/d/000000043/sitespeed-page-summary?orgId=1&var-base=sitespeed_io&var-path=desktop&var-testname=gitlab&var-group=gitlab_com&var-page=Knowledge_Design_Collection&var-browser=chrome&var-connectivity=cable&var-function=median&var-resulturl=https:%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fresults.sitespeed.io&var-screenshottype=jpg) The current LCP metrics at the time of the issue's creation:  We should aim at moving the LCP down to under 4 seconds at minimum. Moving it below 2.5s is the ultimate goal but is not essential for this issue.

2021-06-04 04:45:24.412

GitLab.com Availability - display 2 decimal points in chart mouseover

## Problem The chart for [GitLab.com Availability](https://0603infra-pi.about.gitlab-review.app/handbook/engineering/infrastructure/performance-indicators/#gitlabcom-availability) displays only 1 decimal point in the mouseover display, which is insufficient detail for a metric such as availability.  ## Expected Outcome Figure out how to display at 2 decimal points, or validate that this isn't possible...in which case we need to open (or escalate) a product request with Sisense.

2021-06-02 01:13:51.209

Broken links on /continuous-delivery/

## Before creating an issue - [x] I have reviewed the [Setting yourself up for success](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/digital-experience/website/#requesting-support) section of the website handbook. - [x] I acknowledge that any content updates should also update [social media content](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/admin/#data-needed-on-pages-in-order-for-links-to-work-on-social-media) such as [images](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/#social-media-design), titles, and descriptions on relevant pages. Not doing this can negatively impact related campaigns. ## Where would this project happen? #### Insert here a bulleted list containing any URLs that we'll be updating or creating: - https://about.gitlab.com/stages-devops-lifecycle/continuous-delivery/ ## What does the request INCLUDE? #### Insert the request here: - 2 Broken links under "What is GitLab continuous delivery?" - 1 Broken link under "Multicloud deployment"

2021-06-01 18:55:49.564

Minor Pricing page updates

## Before creating an issue - [x] I have reviewed the [Setting yourself up for success](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/digital-experience/website/#requesting-support) section of the website handbook. - [x] I acknowledge that any content updates should also update [social media content](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/admin/#data-needed-on-pages-in-order-for-links-to-work-on-social-media) such as [images](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/#social-media-design), titles, and descriptions on relevant pages. Not doing this can negatively impact related campaigns. ## Where would this project happen? #### Insert here a bulleted list containing any URLs that we'll be updating or creating: - https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ ## What does the request INCLUDE? #### Insert the request here: - Free-forever features for individual users - Enhance your team productivity and coordination - Organization wide security, compliance, and planning - Remove Free-forever features bullet - Remove "Get" before each of the CI minutes - Free static websites => Static websites - Remove [1] after No credit card required (keep it for 400 CI minutes)

2021-05-27 16:38:56.630

Pricing page minor updates

## Before creating an issue - [x] I have reviewed the [Setting yourself up for success](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/digital-experience/website/#requesting-support) section of the website handbook. - [x] I acknowledge that any content updates should also update [social media content](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/admin/#data-needed-on-pages-in-order-for-links-to-work-on-social-media) such as [images](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/social-marketing/#social-media-design), titles, and descriptions on relevant pages. Not doing this can negatively impact related campaigns. ## Where would this project happen? #### Insert here a bulleted list containing any URLs that we'll be updating or creating: - https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ ## What does the request INCLUDE? #### Insert the request here: Per Slack feedback from Sid, - The 'Get x,0000 CI/CD minutes per month' items should have a bullet in front, not a + (don't expand it, remove the percent comparison) - Engineer's note: This was updated on both the control and test variants. - The text 'Buy Premium for DevOps' and 'Buy Ultimate for DevOps' doesn't make sense to me, I suggest saying 'Buy GitLab Premium' and 'Buy GitLab Ultimate'. - Engineer's note: I did this on only the test variant. I did not update the control variant at this time.

2021-05-26 20:08:48.977

Follow-up from "Add inline_svg extension and leverage in heading component for event template"

The following discussion from !82454 should be addressed: - [ ] @laurenbarker started a [discussion](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/82454#note_583828959): (+5 comments) > I think this is a great extension that will enable the Digital Experience team to implement a Slippers `svg` icon library in the repo and utilize it efficiently in our templates. > > WDYT @brandon_lyon @tywilliams

2021-05-20 21:59:51.919

Create FID/CLS charts in Sisense

Create FID and CLS PIs in handbook ### Grafana dashboard https://dashboards.gitlab.net/d/000000043/sitespeed-page-summary?orgId=1&from=now-7d&to=now&var-base=sitespeed_io&var-path=desktop&var-group=gitlab_com&var-page=_explore&var-browser=chrome&var-connectivity=cable&var-function=median ### Sisense dashboard * CLS: https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/888743/Cumulative-Layout-Shift-(CLS)-at-P90 * FID: https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/888749/First-Input-Delay-(FID)-at-P90

2021-05-20 09:29:45.091

Section missing on https://about.gitlab.com/install/ce-or-ee/

This template is for filing a bug report related to the logged out marketing website https://about.gitlab.com/ and company handbook https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/ This is not the correct repository for requests related to docs.gitlab.com, the GitLab product, or other items. #### What is/are the relevant URL(s) https://about.gitlab.com/install/ce-or-ee/ #### Briefly describe the bug Example: A link is broken and when hovering over it the color is the wrong color and poorly aligned. It says: "...you have additional advantages:" and then there is no content regarding these. #### If possible, please specify how to reproduce the bug visit https://about.gitlab.com/install/ce-or-ee/ #### Please provide any relevant screenshots or screencasts How to take a screenshot: https://www.howtogeek.com/205375/how-to-take-screenshots-on-almost-any-device/  #### What is your window size, browser, operating system, and versions Please use the following website to determine your browser specifications and provide a link developers can follow: What is my browser https://www.whatsmybrowser.org https://www.whatsmybrowser.org/b/VNDHV #### What computing device are you using? Please list the brand and model (Example: Samsung Galaxy S 10 Plus) MacBook ### What type of input are you attempting to use? Webpage interactivity is often tied to a specific device event. - [ ] Touchscreen - [ ] Touchpad - [ ] Mouse click - [ ] Mouse click and drag - [ ] Scrollwheel - [ ] Keyboard - [ ] Stylus - [ ] Other (please specify) #### Have you tried a fresh incognito window? Could this be related to cookies or account type/state? - [X] I tried a fresh incognito window & it had no impact. - [ ] The problem goes away when using an incognito window. - [ ] The problem only happens when certain cookies are set to a specific value (please specify below). #### Please list any browser plugins you have enabled Why do we ask for this? Certain website bugs may be caused by plugins. For example: Adblock, noscript, ghostery, safe browsing. no blockers #### Are you blocking javascript or any other resources? Javascript is needed for certain website functionality. - [ ] I AM blocking javascript or other resources. - [X] I am NOT blocking javascript or other resources. #### What is your geographic location Why do we ask for this? Certain bugs may be geographically related. For example, if you're in the European Union, it could be related to GDPR policy and cookies. Germany #### What type of network are you connected to? **Type** - [ ] Wired - [X] Wifi - [ ] Cellular (4G, 5G, etc) - [ ] Satellite - [ ] Other `Insert details here if applicable` **Location** - [X] Home - [ ] Workplace - [ ] Travel facility (hotel, airport, conference center, etc) - [ ] Public venue (restaurant, library, cafe, etc) - [ ] VPN - [ ] Other `Insert details here if applicable` **Hardware** - [ ] I am behind a network security appliance such as a firewall - [ ] I am using a pi-hole or other hardware-based traffic blocker - [ ] Other `Insert details here if applicable` <!-- Please do not remove the items below, they are needed to automatically notify the relevant entities --> /cc @gl-website <!-- These labels will be automatically applied unless you edit or delete the following section -->

2021-05-19 12:27:43.839

Pricing page should mention that CC is required for CI minutes

#### What is/are the relevant URL(s) - https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/ #### Briefly describe the bug I am seeing this page and we say `No credit card required`. While that is true, according to https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/05/17/prevent-crypto-mining-abuse/ new *free* accounts require a CC before utilizing CI. So I was wondering whether we should call this out, e.g. #### If possible, please specify how to reproduce the bug Go to the page. #### Please provide any relevant screenshots or screencasts  #### EXPECTATION I would expect that e.g. > Get 400 CI/CD minutes per month is changed to > Get 400 CI/CD minutes per month¹ where `¹` is linked to the FAQ section (https://about.gitlab.com/pricing#faq) and we add something to the Pipelines Section like: > Why do I need to enter Credit Card details for free pipeline minutes? > In order to combat crypto yada-yada link to blogpost: https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/05/17/prevent-crypto-mining-abuse/ #### What is your window size, browser, operating system, and versions N/A #### What computing device are you using? N/A ### What type of input are you attempting to use? N/A #### Have you tried a fresh incognito window? Could this be related to cookies or account type/state? N/A #### Please list any browser plugins you have enabled N/A #### Are you blocking javascript or any other resources? N/A #### What is your geographic location N/A #### What type of network are you connected to? N/A **Hardware** N/A <!-- Please do not remove the items below, they are needed to automatically notify the relevant entities --> /cc @gl-website <!-- These labels will be automatically applied unless you edit or delete the following section -->

2021-05-18 20:03:35.666

Create prioritization methodology for eng metric issues

## Background We need to create a way to denote priority to compare important of eng metrics issues:

2021-05-13 18:42:13.226

Create promotion rate PI for all department

Current promotion rate charts are on this dashboard: https://app.periscopedata.com/app/gitlab/756370/Promotion_Rate We want to push this to all departments at the PI level. ## Reviews - [ ] Review Completed for `Engineering Division` https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/security/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/54 - [ ] Review Completed for ~"Customer Support Department" - [ ] Review Completed for ~"Development Department" - [ ] Review Completed for ~"Infrastructure Department" - [ ] Review Completed for ~"Quality Department" - [ ] Review Completed for ~"UX Department" - [ ] Review Completed for ~"Security Department"

2021-05-11 20:21:22.886

Update the HB install script to first detect if the working directory is a git directory

<!-- This template is for requesting work related to the [company handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/). This is not the correct repository for requests related to docs.gitlab.com, the GitLab product, or other items. You may link to this issue template using the following URL: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/issues/new?issuable_template=-handbook-update --> #### Briefly describe the update The handbook install script tries to establish whereabouts on your system the `www-gitlab-com` repo is located. We should first check the working directory to see if it's a git repo and use it if that's the case. Suggested by @cwoolley-gitlab [here](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/81524#note_570269519) <!-- Example: Updating team documentation regarding project workflow. --> <!-- These labels will be automatically applied unless you edit or delete the following section -->

2021-05-10 23:41:40.914

Update Analyst Research page

## Relates to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/strategic-marketing/product-marketing/-/issues/5040

2021-05-04 07:02:03.622

Follow-up from "Add 2021 DecSecOps Survey page"

The following discussion from !81287 should be addressed: - [ ] @jgarc started a [discussion](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/81287#note_566610206): (+1 comment) > Need to follow up on fixing past developer-survey assets for 2020!

2021-05-03 21:11:35.190

Homepage banner swap: DevSecOps Survey 2021 Results

## Relates to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/marketing/inbound-marketing/growth/-/issues/1264

2021-05-03 18:50:40.060

Blog post: TanukiStan: Using machine learning for GitLab Issue Triaging (Sept 13)

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) The Inbound Marketing team prioritizes requests that drive results and meet our [goals of generating organic traffic and inquiries](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/#goals). Please note that there is a different process for when you want to announce something via the blog. Please see [announcement requests](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in the handbook and open an announcement request issue instead of a blog post issue. Generally speaking, engineering blog posts that are tutorials/how-tos or which share how we built or debugged something, are popular with our audience. **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** If you are pitching something outside of those guidelines, please fill in the below to help us prioritize. You can check out [examples of high- and low-performing blog posts to help with your rationale](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/content/editorial-team/#top-performing-blog-posts). **This issue fulfills one of these goals:** <!--(Requestor check one)--> - [ ] Drive traffic to our website - [ ] Convert traffic into leads - [ ] Thought leadership/share expertise - [ ] Build relationships with potential customers - [ ] Drive long-term results (please explain below in your proposal) - [ ] Announcement - `Link to announcement request issue (required, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements)` - [ ] Cross-functional support - `Link to OKR (required if this box is checked)` ## Proposal @stanhu is giving a talk on "TanukiStan: Using machine learning for GitLab Issue Triaging" which will be turned into a blog post. Slides: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/16Y6GTOY_AffD8vEbE4jkbQw_0s1hC5RbRM-PbuKBAWk/edit Agenda: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10xtjU7Q2mH3ifAIASnUBwW9Y7zIOfbMFWiWEvMeldVE/edit# Would be great if the talk is recorded so we can embed a video in this technical blog post. ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | `@person` | requestor | | `@skassabian`| editor | | `@person` | approver (optional) | ### Checklist - [x] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [x] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [x] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [x] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [ ] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [ ] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2021-05-03 18:35:35.945

Optional DRI Attribute to PIs

In Infra, we have unofficially had DRIs for specific sections of metrics for awhile. As an example, I would handle cost metrics, Director of infra, reliability handles incident related metrics, and senior manager, delivery & scalability would handle MTTP and other metrics around deployments/scaling. Ultimately the metrics still have department head as DRI for the page overall in case someone is out or update missed. I think this has worked out pretty well for us, and we were talking about making this kind of delegation of PIs official in the page and document what that DRI would be responsible for. This change would be: - adding DRI attribute to PI pages - handbook documentation on what denoted DRI, department head, CTO (or applicable position above department heads), and analysts are responsible for in relation to the PI pages Idea of documented division of responsibility would break down into: - listed DRI would be responsible for updating health & health reasons of KPI before each key meeting and answering any related questions in the meeting as well. These DRIs would typically be Directors or Managers who are closest to the metrics if they are delegated this responsibility by their department head. - Analysts are responsible for maintaining shared PIs charts in Sisense across departments (Inherited PIs) and supporting DRIs with creation of their department specific PI charts in Sisense. - Department heads are responsible for their PI page overall, so covering for any PIs without delegated DRI and in case someone is out. - CTO is responsible for defining the division level PIs that are shared across departments and working with department heads on setting targets for these https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/85436 cc @meks @lmai1

2021-04-30 21:35:24.684

Change Request: Support Department MR Rate

<!--- This issue is for visualization related issues within our BI tool. ----> #### What is the original Periscope dashboard/link? https://app.periscopedata.com/shared/fc54cf54-e5f9-4708-9dfe-9e4c921ac79e? #### Please link to where this (or these) performance indicator/s are defined in the handbook. https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/support/performance-indicators/#support-department-mr-rate #### What are your requested changes? Two changes: 1. Target is defined at 5 MRs per month, but target line shows at 10. Should be corrected. 1. (Like to have, not required) Add a table that would show in dashboard (but not in handbook embed) of number of MRs by Gitlab username. Sorted descending by total MRs. #### What is the business question you are trying to answer? For change 2, which ICs may need help to complete contributions? #### What is the impact of this question and how will it help the company? Identification of individuals who may need additional assistance would encourage them to contribute and increase results in KPI. #### What time frames are crucial here? Should be total for entire time frame (year) of dashboard. ICs who make even a small number of contributions in a year likely do not need additional help. #### What is the visualization you are trying to create? Include any links or screenshots, if appropriate. As a rule of the thumb, the analytics team uses 12 visualization types. They are: 1. Simple Text | GitLab username | Total number of MRs | | ------ | ------ | | cynthia | 5 | | jcolyer | 2 | #### What is the source of data behind the visualization? GitLab. Hopefully the same source as already used in the dashboard. #### What interactions/drill downs are required? No filters required. #### Any caveats or details that may be helpful?

2021-04-28 14:05:48.294

Blog: Security Culture Committee (May 7)

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) The Inbound Marketing team prioritizes requests that drive results and meet our [goals of generating organic traffic and inquiries](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/#goals). Please note that there is a different process for when you want to announce something via the blog. Please see [announcement requests](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in the handbook and open an announcement request issue instead of a blog post issue. Generally speaking, engineering blog posts that are tutorials/how-tos or which share how we built or debugged something, are popular with our audience. **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** If you are pitching something outside of those guidelines, please fill in the below to help us prioritize. You can check out [examples of high- and low-performing blog posts to help with your rationale](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/content/editorial-team/#top-performing-blog-posts). **This issue fulfills one of these goals:** <!--(Requestor check one)--> - [ ] Drive traffic to our website - [ ] Convert traffic into leads - [X] Thought leadership/share expertise - [ ] Build relationships with potential customers - [ ] Drive long-term results (please explain below in your proposal) - [ ] Announcement - `Link to announcement request issue (required, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements)` - [ ] Cross-functional support - `Link to OKR (required if this box is checked)` ## Proposal This blog describes the creation of a Security Culture committee, why its needed, what the committee focuses on, etc. Related issue with draft: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/gl-security/security-communications/communications/-/issues/322 ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | `@heather` | requestor | | `@person`| editor | | `@person` | approver (optional) | ### Checklist - [x] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [x] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [ ] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [ ] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [ ] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [ ] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2021-04-27 20:12:33.573

Blog post: Scaling our hands-on lab infrastructure for self-paced training (Publish date TBD)

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** ## Proposal <!-- What do you want to blog about? Add your description here. If you are making an announcement, please open an `announcement` request issue in the Corporate Marketing project instead: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements --> ``` description: We want to share the behind the scenes story of how we are scaling our Demo Systems hands-on lab infrastructure from 500 to 5,000+ users as we live our values of collaboration, iteration, results and transparency, even when it’s hard. ``` ``` introduction: Last week we posted a [blog article](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/04/20/everyone-can-get-certified/) about our new self-paced GitLab certification program with hands-on labs that included a 100% discount code. The Professional Services team was excited to release this offering and from a hands-on lab infrastructure capacity, it was considered to be just another addition to our growing list of self-paced training offerings with hands-on labs that haven’t had any capacity challenges in the past. What we didn't anticipate is the interest that this would generate when it was published on our blog and shared virally on social media. As it turns out, when you offer something for free to our 30,000,000+ users, there is certainly going to be some interest! I want to share the behind the scenes story of how we are scaling our Demo Systems hands-on labs infrastructure from 500 to 5,000+ users, and some of the business and technical challenges that we’ve had to overcome in the last week. At GitLab, we try to live our values of collaboration, iteration, results, and transparency, even when it’s hard. We’re not perfect, however here is the story of what happened and how we’re iterating to make things better for everyone. ``` Full blog post draft with comment rights. Editor can request rights to edit. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UyDne_HPQ2Ki4cefpt21UBRrfr3vEY0-ogmNvBb5nDU/edit?usp=sharing ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | @jeffersonmartin | requestor & author | | @skassabian | editor | | @c.yoshida | approver | | @dsakamoto | approver | ### Checklist - [ ] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [ ] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [ ] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [ ] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [X] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - ~~If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts)~~ - ~~If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts)~~ - [x] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [ ] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2021-04-27 11:44:48.729

Blog post: integrate Jira with GL (3 of 3) - 5/30

Draft of post by Tye: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aEnXv1liw3AIZMESyjrPgncdBUhcWPzOfN2sEC-3xko/edit

2021-04-23 17:10:58.595

Blog Post: Co-writing Gitlab and Scaleway blog cross promotion (June 9)

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) The Inbound Marketing team prioritizes requests that drive results and meet our [goals of generating organic traffic and inquiries](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/#goals). Please note that there is a different process for when you want to announce something via the blog. Please see [announcement requests](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in the handbook and open an announcement request issue instead of a blog post issue. Generally speaking, engineering blog posts that are tutorials/how-tos or which share how we built or debugged something, are popular with our audience. **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** If you are pitching something outside of those guidelines, please fill in the below to help us prioritize. You can check out [examples of high- and low-performing blog posts to help with your rationale](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/content/editorial-team/#top-performing-blog-posts). **This issue fulfills one of these goals:** <!--(Requestor check one)--> - [X] Drive traffic to our website - [ ] Convert traffic into leads - [ ] Thought leadership/share expertise - [ ] Build relationships with potential customers - [ ] Drive long-term results (please explain below in your proposal) - [ ] Announcement - `Link to announcement request issue (required, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements)` - [ ] Cross-functional support - `Link to OKR (required if this box is checked)` ## Proposal Scaleway has co-written a [blog post](https://gitlab.com/brollik/scaleway/-/blob/master/2021-03-18-tuto-mac-m1-gitlab-ci.md) that they are publishing on their website and they would like to have us cross-promote and publish on our end as well. We opened [this issue](https://gitlab.com/brollik/scaleway/-/issues/1) for the purpose of feedback and suggested edits. We've communicated via email mostly so I've forwarded the email chain to @bmatturro for the extra context in case that's helpful! I wasn't sure if there is a difference in process compared to our normal blog process in cases like this. Please advise if I used the wrong template or need to follow another process, thanks! ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | @parker_ennis @DarrenEastman | requestor | | `@person`| editor | | `@person` | approver (optional) | ### Checklist - [ ] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [ ] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [ ] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [ ] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [ ] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [X] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2021-04-21 22:03:09.219

Blog Post: How to use Terraform with Kubernetes (July 21 - TBD)

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) The Inbound Marketing team prioritizes requests that drive results and meet our [goals of generating organic traffic and inquiries](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/#goals). Please note that there is a different process for when you want to announce something via the blog. Please see [announcement requests](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in the handbook and open an announcement request issue instead of a blog post issue. Generally speaking, engineering blog posts that are tutorials/how-tos or which share how we built or debugged something, are popular with our audience. **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** If you are pitching something outside of those guidelines, please fill in the below to help us prioritize. You can check out [examples of high- and low-performing blog posts to help with your rationale](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/content/editorial-team/#top-performing-blog-posts). **This issue fulfills one of these goals:** <!--(Requestor check one)--> - [ ] Drive traffic to our website - [ ] Convert traffic into leads - [ ] Thought leadership/share expertise - [ ] Build relationships with potential customers - [ ] Drive long-term results (please explain below in your proposal) - [ ] Announcement - `Link to announcement request issue (required, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements)` - [ ] Cross-functional support - `Link to OKR (required if this box is checked)` ## Proposal Related to: https://twitter.com/kubermatic/status/1374357606412779522?s=27 Our blog post about GitOps, terraform, etc. was one of the most read posts we've ever published so I know that this will be a hot topic. I'm not totally sure what the angle here is, I will leave that up to you @abuango, but I think that if we do something like "How to use Terraform with Kubernetes and GitLab" that could be great. ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | `@person` | requestor | | `@person`| editor | | `@person` | approver (optional) | ### Checklist - [ ] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [ ] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [ ] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [ ] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [ ] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [ ] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2021-04-21 18:30:19.743

Create Vacancy Time to Fill KPI

Part of overall review of division level PIs: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/11463 If we are keeping PI at department level, tasks involved with review are: - if chart update is needed, agree on what format going forward will be - changing formatting to match standards in Sisense charts - check target matches in handbook and sisense - make sure handbook definition and other details are updated and link to parent is not broken ## Reviews - [x] Review Completed for `Engineering Division` - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84142 - [x] Review Completed for ~"Customer Support Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84127 - [x] Review Completed for ~"Development Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84129 - [x] Review Completed for ~"Infrastructure Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/83163 - [x] Review Completed for ~"Quality Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84131 - [x] Review Completed for ~"Security Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84134 - [x] Review Completed for ~"UX Department" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/84133

2021-04-21 12:07:53.129

Blog post: Loading large requests on the frontend in increasingly larger batches

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/unfiltered for details on the Unfiltered blog process.--> ### Proposal <!-- What do you want to blog about? Add your description here --> #### Potential Titles * Loading large requests on the frontend in increasingly larger batches * Loading increasingly large batches to render large MRs faster * Batch Diff loading with increasing payloads * Incrementally loading large merge request diffs in batches * .... #### Goal Go over the journey of shipping batch diffs and tweaking them for better performance in large Merge Requests #### Outline * Establish the previously shipped batch diffs. Pain points of lots of requests/iterations for large MRs * Slow start of TCP/IP * Actual implementation with minimum (1st request fast), growing up to a point (beware of BE load) * Results * Future work: parallelisation. (problem: how to handle order?)

2021-04-19 18:36:02.625

Blog Post Pitch: What is the GitLab package?

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) The Inbound Marketing team prioritizes requests that drive results and meet our [goals of generating organic traffic and inquiries](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/#goals). Please note that there is a different process for when you want to announce something via the blog. Please see [announcement requests](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in the handbook and open an announcement request issue instead of a blog post issue. Generally speaking, engineering blog posts that are tutorials/how-tos or which share how we built or debugged something, are popular with our audience. **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** If you are pitching something outside of those guidelines, please fill in the below to help us prioritize. You can check out [examples of high- and low-performing blog posts to help with your rationale](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/content/editorial-team/#top-performing-blog-posts). **This issue fulfills one of these goals:** <!--(Requestor check one)--> - [X] Drive traffic to our website - [ ] Convert traffic into leads - [ ] Thought leadership/share expertise - [X] Build relationships with potential customers - [ ] Drive long-term results (please explain below in your proposal) - [ ] Announcement - `Link to announcement request issue (required, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements)` - [ ] Cross-functional support - `Link to OKR (required if this box is checked)` ## Proposal <!-- What do you want to blog about? Add your description here. If you are making an announcement, please open an `announcement` request issue in the Corporate Marketing project instead: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements --> ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | `@person` | requestor | | `@person`| editor | | `@person` | approver (optional) | ### Checklist - [ ] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [ ] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [ ] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [ ] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [ ] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [ ] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2021-04-13 11:56:59.154

Blog post: Git workflows with Visual Studio Code (May 19)

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) The Inbound Marketing team prioritizes requests that drive results and meet our [goals of generating organic traffic and inquiries](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/#goals). Please note that there is a different process for when you want to announce something via the blog. Please see [announcement requests](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in the handbook and open an announcement request issue instead of a blog post issue. Generally speaking, engineering blog posts that are tutorials/how-tos or which share how we built or debugged something, are popular with our audience. **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** If you are pitching something outside of those guidelines, please fill in the below to help us prioritize. You can check out [examples of high- and low-performing blog posts to help with your rationale](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/content/editorial-team/#top-performing-blog-posts). **This issue fulfills one of these goals:** <!--(Requestor check one)--> - [ ] Drive traffic to our website - [ ] Convert traffic into leads - [ ] Thought leadership/share expertise - [ ] Build relationships with potential customers - [ ] Drive long-term results (please explain below in your proposal) - [ ] Announcement - `Link to announcement request issue (required, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements)` - [ ] Cross-functional support - `Link to OKR (required if this box is checked)` ## Proposal <!-- What do you want to blog about? Add your description here. If you are making an announcement, please open an `announcement` request issue in the Corporate Marketing project instead: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements --> Visual Studio Code & the GitLab workflow extension are a great help. The idea is to provide a story line from the first code & git init/add to a fully fledged workflow with merges, publishing, etc. - similar to the [quick actions story line](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/02/18/improve-your-gitlab-productivity-with-these-10-tips/). Existing SCM/Git integration & optional CLI access for fast resolving e.g. merge conflicts could also be interesting (https://code.visualstudio.com/docs/editor/versioncontrol). Or a best practice extension which makes daily live easier? Existing blog posts: - https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/03/01/gitlab-vscode-extension/ - https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/07/31/use-gitlab-with-vscode/ - https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/11/30/vscode-extension-development-with-gitlab/ - https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2021/01/25/mr-reviews-with-vs-code/ This is a follow-up idea from https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/2874#note_549700745 - currently not planning on writing this myself. cc @skassabian ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | `@person` | requestor | | `@person`| editor | | `@person` | approver (optional) | ### Checklist - [x] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [x] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [ ] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [ ] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [ ] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [ ] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2021-04-12 23:20:02.112

Partner Blog Post: Getting GitOps right with IaC Security [To be published before or during GitOps Sales Play]

<!-- PLEASE READ: See https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/ for details on the blog process. Unless you are just suggesting a blog post idea, you will need to create the formatted merge request for your blog post in order for it to be reviewed and published. --> ## Triage (REQUIRED) The Inbound Marketing team prioritizes requests that drive results and meet our [goals of generating organic traffic and inquiries](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/#goals). Please note that there is a different process for when you want to announce something via the blog. Please see [announcement requests](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in the handbook and open an announcement request issue instead of a blog post issue. Generally speaking, engineering blog posts that are tutorials/how-tos or which share how we built or debugged something, are popular with our audience. **If your proposed blog post is aligned with our [Attributes of a successful blog post guidelines](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#attributes-of-a-successful-blog-post), you can skip straight to your [proposal](#proposal).** If you are pitching something outside of those guidelines, please fill in the below to help us prioritize. You can check out [examples of high- and low-performing blog posts to help with your rationale](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/inbound-marketing/content/editorial-team/#top-performing-blog-posts). **This issue fulfills one of these goals:** <!--(Requestor check one)--> - [x] Drive traffic to our website - [ ] Convert traffic into leads - [x] Thought leadership/share expertise - [x] Build relationships with potential customers - [ ] Drive long-term results (please explain below in your proposal) - [ ] Announcement - `Link to announcement request issue (required, see https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements)` - [ ] Cross-functional support - `Link to OKR (required if this box is checked)` ## Proposal <!-- What do you want to blog about? Add your description here. If you are making an announcement, please open an `announcement` request issue in the Corporate Marketing project instead: https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements --> This blog will be about GitOps best practices, how GitLab enables the automation of infrastructure as code and how our technology partner, Indeni, helps to secure IaC. The blog post is entitled:[Getting GitOps right with IaC Security](https://docs.google.com/document/d/11knV2J0fRKQa49TYXLx8TgVss1TuOUCa9e2CzgX5EBY/edit?ts=6046bbc9#heading=h.yhp0ki8yozp). @cblake and @stkerr on our Secure team have already provided input and feedback to Indeni on this blog post. This blog post ties into one of our overarching sales plays - GitOps. We would like to release the blog prior to or in coordination with the GitOps GTM sales play. cc: @dpduncan ## Roles and Responsibilities | Person | Role | | ------ | ------ | | `@mlebeau` | Mike LeBeau - Technology Partner Manager (Alliances) | | `@person`| editor | | `@person` | approver (optional) | ### Checklist - [ ] If you have a specific publish date in mind (please allow 3 weeks' lead time) - [ ] Include it in the issue title and apply the appropriate marketing milestone (e.g. `Mktg: 2021-03-28`) - [ ] Give the issue a due date of a minimum of 2 working days prior - [ ] If your post is likely to be >2,000 words, give a due date of a minimum of 4 working days prior - [ ] If [time sensitive](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/#process-for-time-sensitive-posts) - [ ] Add ~"Blog: Priority" label and supplied rationale in description - [ ] If wide-spread customer impacting or sensitive, mention `@nwoods` to give her a heads up ASAP, apply the ~"sensitive" label, and check the [PR handbook](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/corporate-marketing/#requests-for-announcements) in case you need to open an announcement request instead of a blog post issue - [x] If the post is about one of GitLab's Technology Partners, including integration partners, mention `@dpduncan`, apply the ~"Partner Marketing" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] If the post is about one of GitLab's customers, mention `@FionaOKeeffe`, apply the ~"Customer Reference Program" label, and see the [blog handbook for more on third-party posts](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/marketing/blog/index.html#third-party-posts) - [ ] Indicate if supporting an event or campaign - [ ] Indicate if this post requires additional approval from internal or external parties before publishing (please provide details in a comment) ## Production - [ ] Requestor to complete issue template (Triage, Proposal, Roles and Responsibilities, Checklist ) - [ ] Issue sent through triage for consideration (approve, backlog, deny) - [ ] Issue assigned to requestor to draft blog post and open MR - [ ] MR created and linked to issue - issue is now deprecated in favor of MR and will close once MR is complete

2019-06-13 20:05:01.288

Triage package v2.0 with customer bugs and missed SLO bugs

## Background We are making progress in lowering the time to resolve bugs and increasing awareness. Its time for an iteration on the content and the structure of the triage content. ## Current structure We currently have 3 sections. Examples * https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12050 * https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/12042 1. ~feature issues with no milestone and we request that product managers add a milestone to them. 1. ~bug with ~frontend issues with no severity and priority labels. We then ask the ~frontend manager to schedule them. 1. ~bug with with no severity and priority labels. We then ask the ~frontend manager to schedule them. ## Improvements 1. [x] With Product Managers grooming their features continuously we should consider changing section `1.` to narrow down only ~feature with ~customer. Continue to ask them to be scheduled. 1. [x] With ~Quality handling triage level 1 which includes adding a severity label, we should change section `2.` and `3.` to just ~bug without a milestone. Ask the EM to ensure that the priority is correct or set and schedule a milestone. Maintain 15 max count and prioritize ~bug with ~customer first. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/merge_requests/140 1. [x] Include a report on bugs that is past their SLO https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/issues/137 1. [x] Include heat map on all ~bug for that area. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/issues/166 1. [x] Update handbook triage package information. ## Format Hi, `PM_PLACEHOLDER` `FE_EM_PLACEHOLDER` `BE_EM_PLACEHOLDER` This is a group or stage level triage package that aims to summarize the feature proposals and bugs which have not been scheduled or triaged. For more information please refer to the handbook: - https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/guidelines/triage-operations/#current-packages Scheduling the workload is a collaborative effort by the Product Managers and Engineering Managers for that group. Please work together to provide a best estimate on priority and milestone assignments. For each issue please: - Determine if the issue should be closed if it is no longer relevant or a duplicate. - If it is still relevant please assign either a best estimate versioned milestone, the %Backlog or the %"Awaiting further demand" milestone. - Specifically for ~bug, if there is no priority or clarity on a versioned milestone, please add a Priority label. Priority labels have an estimate SLO attached to them and help team members and the wider community understand roughly when it will be considered to be scheduled. - `LINK_TO_PRIORITY_DEFINITION` - Once a milestone has been assigned please check off the box for that issue. - Please work with your team to complete the list by the due date set. ### Heat map report Here is a heat map report on the distribution of open ~bug for your area. ``` Add heatmap ``` ### Feature Proposal section For the following feature proposals. Please either close or assign either a versioned milestone, the %Backlog or the %"Awaiting further demand" milestone. #### Unscheduled ~feature with ~customer ``` Lists customer feature proposals with no milestones Limit: 15 issues ``` #### Unscheduled ~feature (non customer) ``` Lists feature proposals with no milestones Limit: 15 issues ``` ### Bug section For the following bugs. Please either close or assign either a versioned milestone, the %Backlog or the %"Awaiting further demand" milestone and ensure that a priority label is set. #### Unscheduled ~frontend ~bug with ~customer ```Lists customer bugs for frontend with no milestone Limit: 15 issues ``` #### Unscheduled ~frontend ~bug (non customer) ```Lists bugs for frontend with no milestone in the project Limit: 15 issues ``` #### Unscheduled ~bug with ~customer ```Lists customer bugs without frontend with no milestone Limit: 15 issues ``` #### Unscheduled ~bug (non customer) ```Lists bugs without frontend with no milestone Limit: 15 issues ``` #### ~bug with Missed SLO target section ```Lists bugs that have passed their priority related SLO threshold Limit: P1 and P2 ```

2019-06-12 09:13:28.138

Consolidate labels for marking issues that are open for community contributions

### Problem The ~"Accepting merge requests" label which is mostly used for making it easier to [contribute](https://about.gitlab.com/community/contribute/) by marking issues that are open for community contributions. This is interfered, most probably unintentionally, by similar labels like the [Accepting Merge Requests](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/-/labels?utf8=%E2%9C%93&subscribed=&search=Accepting) label in the [`omnibus-gitlab`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab) project (see related [issues](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/issues?label_name%5B%5D=Accepting+Merge+Requests)) and the [Accepting community contributions](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/design.gitlab.com/-/labels?utf8=✓&subscribed=&search=Accepting) label in the [`design.gitlab.com`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/design.gitlab.com) project (see related [issues](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/design.gitlab.com/issues?label_name%5B%5D=Accepting+community+contributions)). ### Proposal 1. Delete the [Accepting Merge Requests](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/-/labels?utf8=%E2%9C%93&subscribed=&search=Accepting) project label in `omnibus-gitlab` and replace it, on the related [issues](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/issues?label_name%5B%5D=Accepting+Merge+Requests), with the `gitlab-org` group label ~"Accepting merge requests". /cc @ibaum @marin @twk3 1. Delete the [Accepting community contributions](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/design.gitlab.com/-/labels?utf8=✓&subscribed=&search=Accepting) project label in `design.gitlab.com` and replace it, on the related [issues](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/design.gitlab.com/issues?label_name%5B%5D=Accepting+community+contributions), with the `gitlab-org` group label ~"Accepting merge requests". /cc @pedroms @tauriedavis

2019-06-12 08:13:35.509

Remove "~Accepting merge requests" label on all merge requests

### Problem The ~"Accepting merge requests" label is usually attached to issues that are marked as open for community contributions. However, it's also attached to [merged requests](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/merge_requests?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=all&label_name[]=Accepting%20merge%20requests) opened directly from the issue using the [dropdown option](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/issues/issue_data_and_actions.html#22-create-merge-request) or using the [quick actions](https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/quick_actions.html#quick-actions-for-issues-and-merge-requests). The label is also sometimes added manually on merge requests. ### Proposal 1. Remove the ~"Accepting merge requests" label from _all_ merge requests. 2. Add a policy rule for the @gitlab-bot to auto remove this label from future merge requests that will continue to attach that label due to current UX. There is probably no need to change the current UX since auto removing the automatically attached ~"Accepting merge requests" label would be unnecessarily too specific, right?

2019-06-10 18:23:06.006

Add report for unscheduled customer bugs in Group level triage package 3.0

This is the help with `Key result`: Triage all existing customer ~S1 ~S2 ~bug and have them scheduled with a milestone. * All existing ~customer ~S1 and ~S2 without a scheduled milestone. * Put the information in CE and EE. This is done: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/63136 We need to evaluate including this in the weekly triage packages

2019-05-23 10:01:36.206

Independently infer and apply group and stage labels

## Proposal * The bot does doesn't change a stage or group label if it's already set. * A group label is chosen only if the highest group match from its category labels is > 50%. * A group label is chosen only if the it matches the already set stage label (if applicable). * A stage label is set based on the chosen or already set group label. * The bot leaves a message that explains its inference logic. ### Triage workflow ```mermaid graph LR A{Stage label is present?} -- Yes --> B B{Group label is present?} -- Yes --> X1[Nothing to do.] B -- No --> E E{Group is detected based on category labels<br>with a match rate > 50% among all category labels?} -- Yes --> H E -- No --> K H{Does detected group label matches stage label?} -- Yes --> X2[Set detected group label.] H -- No --> K K{Several potential groups in current<br>stage detected from category labels?} -- Yes --> X3[Manual triage required.] K -- No --> X4[Set default group label based on stage label.] A -- No --> C C{Group label is present?} -- Yes --> X5[Set stage label based on group label, we're done!] C -- No --> G G{Group is detected based on feature/category labels?} -- Yes --> X6[Set group and stage labels.] G -- No --> X7[Manual triage required.] ``` ### Use-cases/test-cases | Stage label | Group label | Category labels | Team label | New labels | Bot message | Note | | ----------- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------- | ---------- | ----------- | ---- | | ~"devops::configure" | ~"group::autodevops and kubernetes" | ~"wiki" | ~"Verify" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | No new labels. | | ~"devops::configure" | ~"group::autodevops and kubernetes" | ~"wiki" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | No new labels. | | ~"devops::configure" | ~"group::autodevops and kubernetes" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"Verify" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | No new labels. | | ~"devops::configure" | ~"group::autodevops and kubernetes" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | No new labels. | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" (100% matching stage) | ~"Verify" | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" (100% matching stage) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~elasticsearch (100% matching stage, 2 different groups) | ~"Verify" | ~"group::knowledge" | :no_entry_sign: | Manual triage required since the 2 potential groups are conflicting | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~elasticsearch (100% matching stage, 2 different groups) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::knowledge" | :no_entry_sign: | Manual triage required since the 2 potential groups are conflicting | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~"design management" ~"analytics" (66% matching stage) | ~"Verify" | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"design management" ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~"design management" ~"analytics" (66% matching stage) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"design management" ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~"analytics" (50% matching stage) | ~"Verify" | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~"analytics" (50% matching stage) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~"analytics" ~"epics" (33% matching stage) | ~"Verify" | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::create" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"wiki" ~"analytics" ~"epics" (33% matching stage) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::knowledge" | `Setting ~"group::knowledge" based on ~"wiki".` | Group based on category since category matches stage | | ~"devops::package" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"design management" (none matching stage) | ~"Verify" | ~"group::package" | `Setting ~"group::package" based on ~"devops::package".` | Group based on stage since category does not match stage | | ~"devops::package" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"design management" (none matching stage) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::package" | `Setting ~"group::package" based on ~"devops::package".` | Group based on stage since category does not match stage | | ~"devops::configure" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"Gitaly" | ~"group::autodevops and kubernetes" | `Setting ~"group::autodevops and kubernetes" based on ~"devops::configure".` | Group based on stage | | ~"devops::verify" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::ci and runner" | `Setting ~"group::ci and runner" based on ~"devops::verify".` | Default group from stage | | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::source code" | ~"design management" ~"markdown" | ~"Verify" | ~"devops::create" | `Setting ~"devops::create" based on ~"group::source code".` | Stage based on group | | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::source code" | ~"design management" ~"markdown" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"devops::create" | `Setting ~"devops::create" based on ~"group::source code".` | Stage based on group | | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::memory" | :no_entry_sign: | ~"Gitaly" | ~"devops::enablement" | `Setting ~"devops::enablement" based on ~"group::memory".` | Stage label based on group | | :no_entry_sign: | ~"group::memory" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"devops::enablement" | `Setting ~"devops::enablement" based on ~"group::memory".` | Stage label based on group | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"backend" ~"bug" | ~"Plan" | ~"devops::plan" ~"group::team planning" | `Setting ~"devops::plan" and ~"group::team planning" based on ~"Plan".` | Stage and group based on team | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"bug" ~"rake tasks" | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | Manual triage required | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"internationalization" (best match: 100%) | ~"Verify" | ~"devops::manage" ~"group::measure" | `Setting ~"devops::manage" and ~"group::measure" based on ~"internationalization".` | Stage and group based on category | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"internationalization" (best match: 100%) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"devops::manage" ~"group::measure" | `Setting ~"devops::manage" and ~"group::measure" based on ~"internationalization".` | Stage and group based on category | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"snippets" ~"elasticsearch" ~"internationalization" (best match: 66%) | ~"Verify" | ~"devops::create" ~"group::editor" | `Setting ~"devops::create" and ~"group::editor" based on ~"elasticsearch" ~"snippets".` | Stage and group based on category label | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"snippets" ~"elasticsearch" ~"internationalization" (best match: 66%) | :no_entry_sign: | ~"devops::create" ~"group::editor" | `Setting ~"devops::create" and ~"group::editor" based on ~"elasticsearch" ~"snippets".` | Stage and group based on category label | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"elasticsearch" ~"internationalization" (best match: 50%) | ~"Verify" | ~"devops::verify" ~"group::ci and runner" | `Setting ~"devops::verify" and ~"group::ci and runner" based on ~"Verify".` | Stage and group based on team | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"elasticsearch" ~"internationalization" (best match: 50%) | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | Manual triage required | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"pipeline" ~"elasticsearch" ~"internationalization" (best match: 33%) | ~"Verify" | ~"devops::verify" ~"group::ci and runner" | `Setting ~"devops::verify" and ~"group::ci and runner" based on ~"Verify"` | Stage and group based on team | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"pipeline" ~"elasticsearch" ~"internationalization" (best match: 33%) | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | Manual triage required | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"backstage" (no match) | ~"Verify" | ~"devops::verify" ~"group::ci and runner" | `Setting ~"devops::verify" and ~"group::ci and runner" based on ~"Verify"` | Stage and group based on team | | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | ~"backstage" (no match) | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | :no_entry_sign: | Manual triage required |

2019-05-21 08:34:12.458

Generate 5x5 grid heat map report on existing open bugs for all group triage packages

We need to start educating teams on how to use different priority and severity levers. The first iteration is to provide visibility into how the bug distribution looks like for each group. * Add 5x5 grid heat map. (Mock up below) * We can reuse @lmcandrew script to generate the table here: https://gitlab.com/lmcandrew/markdown-issue-viewer * Add a table the top of the triage report, one for all bugs in that group  ## Format || ~S1 | ~S2 | ~S3 | ~S4 | `no severity` | |----|----|----|----|----|----| ~P1 | [2](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P1&label_name[]=S1) | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P1&label_name[]=S2) | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P1&label_name[]=S3) | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P1&label_name[]=S3) | 1 ~P2 | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P2&label_name[]=S1) | [2](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P2&label_name[]=S2) | [8](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P2&label_name[]=S3) | [1](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name[]=Quality&label_name[]=bug&label_name[]=P2&label_name[]=S4) | 1 ~P3 | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P3&label_name%5B%5D=S1) | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P3&label_name%5B%5D=S2) | [7](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P3&label_name%5B%5D=S3) | [1](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P3&label_name%5B%5D=S4) | 3 ~P4 | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P4&label_name%5B%5D=S1) | [0](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P4&label_name%5B%5D=S2) | [2](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P4&label_name%5B%5D=S3) | [7](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues?scope=all&utf8=%E2%9C%93&state=opened&label_name%5B%5D=Quality&label_name%5B%5D=bug&label_name%5B%5D=P4&label_name%5B%5D=S4) | 1 `no priority` | 1 | 6 | 19 | 5 | 145

2019-05-20 00:40:42.331

Update the triage package for the Package team

~Package team is booting up with @dcroft. This issue is to capture the changes needed to ensure @dcroft has visibility into these packages.

2019-04-24 02:17:31.302

Apply Control and Framework labels to Manage issues

Manage is going to split into [two groups](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/#manage-stage), Control and Framework. We'd love some help to get the many Manage issues correctly labeled so these groups can prepare for a successful split. :slight\_smile: The [label breakdown between the two groups](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/#other-functionality-in-manage): ~"group:control" * ~"user management" * ~"user profile" * ~permissions * ~"audit events" * ~"spam fighting" * ~"admin dashboard" * ~ldap * ~saml * ~authentication * ~authorization * ~oauth * ~group * ~groups * ~2FA * ~"group templates" * ~subgroups ~"group:framework" * ~analytics * ~"cycle analytics" * ~convdev * ~project * ~"project export" * ~"project import" * ~"project templates" * ~"gitlab.com" * ~navigation * ~internationalization * ~importers * ~import ### Proposal * [ ] Apply the ~"group:control" label to all issues with both the ~Manage label OR the ~"devops:manage" AND one of the ~"group:control" subject labels above. * [ ] Apply the ~"group:framework" label to all issues with both the ~Manage label OR the ~"devops:manage" AND one of the ~"group:framework" subject labels above.

2019-04-15 10:38:45.837

Group triage packages to use stage label instead of Group label

It’s valid to have several group labels but only one stage label :thinking_face: Right now these issues will appear in both groups’ triage package but may not be relevant to both groups… (example: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/issues/9216). Maybe we should find group issues based on the stage label instead? Because we recommend only one of those be added to any issue at one time

2019-03-22 16:56:30.380

Autolabel group label on MRs based on author group information from team.yml

We need to start enforcing a high-level data hygiene on throughputs. > let's use this issue to implement the team member mapping to group labels. Also let's stop using the word "team" we need to be clear on the terminology. Let's reuse the mechanism from enforcing stage labels. ## Proposal * Singularity on **Stages** and **Groups** will be built-in with scoped labels. * **Stages** ~"devops::plan", ~"devops::create", etc. * **Groups** ~"group::source code" ~"group::knowledge" ~"group::editor", etc. * Improving the hygiene accounting on `group::xxx` labels * For un-labeled MRs we should be able to infer from a team member mapping in `team.yml` at that point in time to the `group::xxx`. This would also solve the case when engineers move from group to group since the label preserves that mapping at that point in time. * We will not auto label things that are corrected by a human or if the label is already present. * If data is not present in `team.yml` we should introduce a structure there * Improving the hygiene accounting to `devops:xxx` labels * If there is category label, map to the stage of category label. * If there is only group label, we will not auto label, as the group label could belong to an MR author who is working outside of their stage * We will not auto label things that are corrected by a human or if the label is already present. * Stretch: Auto add specialty label and either ~frontend / ~backend ## Solution First we attempt to add **group label** based on the MR author in `pre-hygiene` stage. This would set the stage for `stage-and-group-labels-hygiene` whereby most MRs would have **group label** set either manually or inferred from the MR author. The next `stage-and-group-labels-hygiene` job will then attempt to infer the remaining labels based on this table: | # | has_stage_label? | has_group_label? | has_category_labels? | group_is_part_of_stage? | inference_strategy| | -- | ------ | ------ | ----- | ------ | ------ | | 1 | true | true | true | N.A | Not needed | | 2 | true | true | false | true | infer category from group | | 3 | true | true | false | false | do not infer category - too many categories per stage to infer reliably | | 4 | true | false | true | N.A | infer group from category or stage | | 5 | false | true | true | N.A | infer stage from category | | 6 | false | true | false | N.A | do not infer stage and category | | 7 | false | false | false | N.A | Not possible to infer | ## Work to do - [x] Create a new entry point for MR label inference based on above - [x] Create new job in `pre-hygiene` to add group label based on MR author - [ ] Use new entry point in MR label inference

2019-03-11 14:44:00.342

~"broken master" was renamed to ~"master:broken"

Adopt the changes from https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/merge_requests/19989/diffs

2019-03-01 20:02:21.187

Better way to handle consecutive 3 month pings on stale issues with no contributor activity

How can we handle situations like this better https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/50358#note_144460196 Ideas: * Add logic to grooming bot to filter activity of `GitLab Bot` * Add logic to ignore ~"awaiting feedback" for this specific rule

2019-02-26 16:21:21.509

Add ~"Community contributor" across the gitlab-org group

For now we have a [special schedule for runner](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/pipeline_schedules/11219/edit) which sets ~"Community contribution" We can escalate this to be gitlab-org group level after having https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-triage/merge_requests/89 /cc @markglenfletcher @meks

2018-11-13 13:54:19.111

Create a new rule to add ~"Community contribution" for core members (`gitlab-core-team`)

Because they're part of `@gitlab-org` and the current rules will not add the labels for core members. ---- The following discussion from !49 should be addressed: - [ ] @gtsiolis started a [discussion](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/merge_requests/49#note_116834216): (+3 comments) > @gitlab-org/triage do you think contributions from the core team members should have the ~"Community contribution" label or not? If yes, I think we could a) add a new policy to add ~"Community contribution" label for members of `@gitlab-core-team`, b) update this rule to include a second `condition` which I don't think it's currently possible, or c) introduce a new label like *Core Team Contribution*.

2018-09-06 09:02:42.569

Remove `no-severity` and `no-priority` labels from issues with S/P labels

When asking a team member to help with adding S/P labels. We ensure that the prompt does not happen again by adding a ~"no\-severity" or ~"no\-priority" label. Once the S/P labels have been applied, we could walk through and remove the ~"no\-priority" and ~"no\-severity" labels. This makes the issues look cleaner and the remaining presence of this label could potentially impact other rules later. But I don't think this is essential right now

2018-08-23 08:33:58.272

Think of a way to create the labels for a new milestone automatically

We now have a lot of labels which corresponds to a particular milestone. We're creating them manually, but I think it's really easily to forget it or create it too early or too late. Too early, we might misuse them. Too late, it's inconvenient when we want to use them. Example of milestone labels: * ~"missed:11.2" and ~"Pick into 11.2" We only need them passing 11.2 freeze date * ~"regression:11.2" We only need this after 11.2 is released Could we make the bot create them automatically? We already know when ~"missed:11.2" should be applied, and for ~"regression:11.2" it's probably after the end of that milestone (i.e. 23th) What we're missing is probably just a way to create the label in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-triage /cc @meks @markglenfletcher

2020-05-06 18:51:02.945

Audit the current group definition for group triage reports

Now who should be assigned and mentioned were defined at [lib/group_definition.rb](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/blob/master/lib/group_definition.rb), and some groups were outdated from the information written on [Product sections, stages, groups, and categories](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/). One example mentioned at https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/merge_requests/483#note_334640221 that ~"group::threat management" was renamed to ~"group::threat insights", and we need to reflect that. I'll go over it and also split engineering managers so we can reuse better for https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/merge_requests/483 For example, change this: ``` ruby def group_analytics { mentions: %w[@dennis @djensen @npost @jshackelford @wortschi], assignees: %w[@dennis @djensen @jshackelford @wortschi], labels: ['group::analytics'] } end ``` To this: ``` ruby def group_analytics { pm: %w[@jshackelford], em: %w[@wortschi @djensen], product_design: %w[@npost], labels: ['group::analytics'] } end ``` I am confused if `@dennis` is a frontend engineering manager for this group, so I think I might need to ask a lot of people for confirming the new list... /cc @gl-quality/eng-prod

2020-05-06 07:10:52.276

Specs are broken in `master`

Job [#539322500](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/jobs/539322500) failed for bbde31cf2d9b07fe17b65d41b04bdf31a2b9ab54:

2020-05-05 15:49:05.150

Create a new set of scoped labels for product Sections

## Summary I'd like to see scoped labels for GitLab Sections (Dev, Ops, Secure, Enablement), as part of our [product hierarchy](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/#hierarchy). This scoped label would be applied automatically whenever a group:: label is present that aligns to a group within that section in our product hierarchy. ## Why My motivation is that it would help me personally search across all issues with a certain additional label (for instance all P1 bugs, Customer, or CEO Interest) across the entire section. In that regard it has a limited set of potential users, namely myself and other section leaders. ## Plan - [X] Create labels for section * ~"section::dev" * ~"section::enablement" * ~"section::growth" * ~"section::ops" * ~"section::securedefend" - [x] Notify in #development, #product prior to the first run of the inference so that subscribers can turn off. [Slack](https://gitlab.slack.com/archives/CU4RJDQTY/p1596722811156600) - [ ] Add section inference to auto-label inference that applies without a comment from GitLab bot * Infer and apply section label from group label * Update documentation at https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/triage-operations/#auto-labelling-of-issues => https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/57538 * Communicate via Slack and What's Happening at GitLab

2020-05-05 12:25:28.909

Group::Spaces changes

## Summary ~"group::spaces" is being absorbed into ~"group::access" with https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/48457. We need to ensure that the triage reports and labels are updated with the change. For every case above, the Engineering Productivity team needs to ensure that: * The label change is factored into the triage mechanism. * Engineering Dashboards at <https://quality-dashboard.gitlap.com/groups/gitlab-org> are updated. * Old labels are migrated correctly on affected issues and merge requests. ### Action items * [-] (If applicable) Dashboard creation: create or update the stage/group in <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-insights/blob/master/lib/gitlab_insights.rb>. * [x] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/merge_requests/500 (If applicable) Label migration on existing issues and merge requests: apply the new label to opened & closed issues, and open & merged merge requests. * [x] Check if label migration will apply labels which have subscribers. [Communicate with the subscribers](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/quality/triage-operations/#communicate-early-and-broadly-about-expected-automation-impact) before applying the label migration. * [x] (If applicable) Archive the old label with renaming and adding "DEPRECATED" at the end of the label name. * [-] (If applicable) Delete the old dashboard views using the deprecated labels. * [x] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/merge_requests/499 (If applicable) Update the group triage report definition to use the new label * [-] (If applicable) Update the group label's description to refer to the new Stage. /cc @gl-quality/eng-prod

2020-04-22 01:15:28.024

Category::Billing does not exist

## Problem The `gitlab-org:stage-and-group-labels-hygeine` job failed and retried the job 2 additional times in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/pipelines/138494857. https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/43007 was merged earlier today which introduced a new Billing Category but did not have a label. This caused the Label Inference comment to be applied 3 times since the label didn't exist like: 

2020-04-21 08:09:49.278

Failure in `gitlab-org:stage-and-group-labels-hygiene`

Job [#519421583](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/jobs/519421583) failed for 1dff6a9bb586b085772b21f3a94a0caafaf2c46b: ``` .[DEBUG] query_api: https://gitlab.com/api/v4/groups/9970/issues?per_page=100&state=opened&page=390/builds/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/lib/devops_labels.rb:330:in `group_part_of_stage?': undefined method `include?' for nil:NilClass (NoMethodError) from /builds/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/lib/devops_labels.rb:383:in `inference_strategy_for_merge_request' from /builds/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/lib/devops_labels.rb:420:in `infer_new_labels' from /builds/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/lib/devops_labels.rb:351:in `new_stage_and_group_labels_from_intelligent_inference' from /builds/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/lib/devops_labels.rb:355:in `comment_for_intelligent_stage_and_group_labels_inference' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/resource/context.rb:24:in `eval' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/resource/context.rb:22:in `instance_eval' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/resource/context.rb:22:in `eval' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/command_builders/text_content_builder.rb:65:in `eval_interpolation' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/command_builders/text_content_builder.rb:55:in `format_item' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/command_builders/base_command_builder.rb:30:in `block in content_string' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/command_builders/base_command_builder.rb:29:in `map' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/command_builders/base_command_builder.rb:29:in `content_string' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/command_builders/base_command_builder.rb:12:in `build_command' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/action/comment.rb:42:in `build_comment' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/action/comment.rb:31:in `block in act' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/policies_resources/rule_resources.rb:15:in `block in each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/policies_resources/rule_resources.rb:14:in `each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/policies_resources/rule_resources.rb:14:in `each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/action/comment.rb:30:in `act' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/action.rb:24:in `act' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/action.rb:12:in `block in process' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/action.rb:11:in `each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/action.rb:11:in `process' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:178:in `process_action' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:115:in `block (2 levels) in process_rules' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:167:in `block in resources_for_rule' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/expand_condition.rb:13:in `each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/expand_condition.rb:13:in `perform' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:151:in `resources_for_rule' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:111:in `block in process_rules' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:110:in `each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:110:in `process_rules' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:57:in `block in perform' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:52:in `each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/lib/gitlab/triage/engine.rb:52:in `perform' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/bin/gitlab-triage:15:in `block in <top (required)>' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/2.6.0/set.rb:338:in `each_key' from /usr/local/lib/ruby/2.6.0/set.rb:338:in `each' from /usr/local/bundle/gems/gitlab-triage-1.7.1/bin/gitlab-triage:10:in `<top (required)>' from /usr/local/bundle/bin/gitlab-triage:23:in `load' from /usr/local/bundle/bin/gitlab-triage:23:in `<main>' ```

2020-04-10 09:38:39.824

Investigate why are we triggering a lot of unuseful pipelines

The only thing those pipelines were doing was `lint-policies`, and apparently we don't need them? /cc @gl-quality/eng-prod 

2020-04-09 14:20:40.681

Update Relevant Labels and Automation to remove the word `Grooming`

[This MR](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/45894) added Grooming to our mis-used terms. There was one follow-up action from that MR: > Adjust labels with the word Grooming in them in [GitLab.org](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-org/-/labels?utf8=%E2%9C%93&subscribed=&search=grooming) and [GitLab.com](https://gitlab.com/groups/gitlab-com/-/labels?utf8=%E2%9C%93&subscribed=&search=grooming) projects Can we adjust the labels as appropriate and update any automation which references them?

2020-04-08 19:11:17.356

Idle merge request triage report

## Problem Merge requests are being idle with no activity on them and are merged more than 30 days from the time when they are opened. [March release analysis](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o9cJACy8ACxUS2WpvdFdikuIR_Db6Bxdbzja-e9aBGc/edit#) showed that 4% of all MRs in March took more than 30 days to merge (122). We want to better understand this population and determine if automation can help reduce number. ## Plan Create a stale merge request group triage package which collects group MRs that have been `updated_at` `older_than` `4 weeks` and run every two weeks. The triage package will be assigned to the group Engineering Managers. - Assigned to: Group Engineering managers - Report frequency: On 8th and 23rd every month ### Template >>> Hi #{assignee}! This is a group level idle merge request report. This report contains open Merge Requests that have not been updated in four weeks for review. > Please review these merge requests to identify if there are any steps that can shorten the time to merge, such as reminding the author about it, changing the DRI, etc. --- ## Stale merge requests 1. [gitlab-org/gitlab!123](link-to-mr) - MR Title 1. [gitlab-org/gitlab!234](link-to-mr) - MR Title >>> ## References - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1o9cJACy8ACxUS2WpvdFdikuIR_Db6Bxdbzja-e9aBGc/edit# - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hTPsJ1ueYfzjgqc3vDsRa5iGOEtbTsNrVfYJNh5oifM/edit#gid=24949791 - Handbook update: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/48764

2020-03-23 14:41:49.581

Update assignment of triage reports for Templates group to Import group

## Summary Now that ownership of Templates is back with Import group, please update assignees of Templates group triage reports (example: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/212113) to the PM, EM, PD for the [Import group](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/categories/#import-group).

2020-03-17 19:48:20.384

Remove testcases default labeling

## Problem The ~"group::not_owned" default label that is applied to issues in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/testcases/-/issues will be creating confusion with ~"group::not_owned" being looked at for a potential Product triage package: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/issues/6245 Originally this policy was added with https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/issues/345 ## Proposal - [ ] Turn off policy for ~"group::not_owned" on the testcases project - [ ] Unlabel issues with ~"group::not_owned" within testcases project & label with ~Quality.

2020-03-17 17:45:30.525

Triage automation for devops::verify to report missing category fails to detect Category:MergeTrains is applied

The triage automation/report for ~"devops::verify" to report missing category fails to detect when an issue already has the ~"Category:Merge Trains" label applied. The ~"Category:Merge Trains" was recently moved from Release stage to Verify stage in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/41969.

2020-03-17 11:21:16.026

Rename `triage-package` to `triage-report`

## Summary This template is for the following types of label changes * Adding a new Stage or Group * Renaming an existing Stage or Group For every case above, the Engineering Productivity team needs to ensure that: * The label change is factored into the triage mechanism. * Old labels are migrated correctly on affected issues and merge requests. ### Action items * [ ] (If applicable) Rename ~"triage-package" to ~"triage-report" * [ ] (If applicable) Update the triage mechanism to use the new label /cc @gl-quality/eng-prod

2020-03-10 09:37:15.367

Category inference failure when Department label and no stage label applied to MR

Job [#461562992](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/jobs/461562992) failed for 24f0438428c1d6b553df2e5d5b771a82485ed496:

2020-03-04 23:34:42.147

Global Search group and category name change

As part of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-gitlab-com/-/merge_requests/42162 the `Search` group and category were changed to `Global Search`. We also used the feature label `elasticsearch` heavily which I'd like to rename to: `Advanced Global Search` If we could also introduce one for `Basic Global Search` that would be ideal as well. Please let me know if additional details are needed. ## Summary This template is for the following types of label changes * Adding a new Stage or Group * Renaming an existing Stage or Group For every case above, the Engineering Productivity team needs to ensure that: * The label change is factored into the triage mechanism. * Engineering Dashboards at <https://quality-dashboard.gitlap.com/groups/gitlab-org> are updated. * Old labels are migrated correctly on affected issues and merge requests. ### Action items * [x] Rename ~"group::search" to ~"group::global search" * [x] Rename ~"Category:Search" to ~"Category:Global Search" * [x] Rename ~elasticsearch to ~"advanced global search" * [x] Update the group triage package definition to use the new label: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-insights/-/merge_requests/190 * [-] (If applicable) Dashboard creation: create or update the stage/group in <https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-insights/blob/master/lib/gitlab_insights.rb>. * [-] (If applicable) Label migration on existing issues and merge requests: apply the new label to opened & closed issues, and open & merged merge requests. * [-] (If applicable) Archive the old label with renaming and adding "DEPRECATED" at the end of the label name. * [-] (If applicable) Delete the old dashboard views using the deprecated labels. /cc @gl-quality/eng-prod

2020-03-04 15:26:07.205

Add Triage Policy for Support Forum Auto-Close

## Proposal As apart of https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support/support-team-meta/issues/1346#plan, create a new daily policy to lock and close issues in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support-forum/ that have not had a comment in last 30 days. This policy would be similar to https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/blob/master/policies/projects/gitlab-foss/move-gitlab-foss-issues-to-gitlab.yml. ``` conditions: state: opened ``` Post a message within https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support/support-team-meta/issues/1346#plan >>> Hey! :wave: We're closing the Support Forum issue tracker in favor of the [community forum](https://forum.gitlab.com) and [support channels](https://about.gitlab.com/support/#contact-support). We recognize that the Support Forum issue tracker has not received much attention in the last few months, and want to redirect our community members to locations that are regularly monitored by GitLab staff. As a result, we are closing all issues. If the issue you're facing is a *reproducible* bug, please search for an existing issue on the [GitLab project tracker](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues) or [file a bug issue](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/new?issuable_template=Bug). If you are still encountering an issue, please raise a new one in the [appropriate place](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support-forum/-/blob/master/README.md) and link back to the closed issue if there's any important context that should be preserved. The current project will become a read-only project with an [updated Readme](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support-forum/-/blob/master/README.md) on where to raise new issues. >>> ## Open Questions - [x] Is `updated_at` for the issue sufficient? This is [available through `gitlab-triage`](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-triage#date-condition) and would make the policy simpler. - [x] Are support forum issues being moved to gitlab-org/gitlab or closed? Based on https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/support/support-team-meta/issues/1346#note_283532621 it seems move but I'm not sure that's the right action for every support-forum issue.

2020-03-02 16:04:25.463

Issues without category report includes issues with category

https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/208610 has issues listed that include Category labels for ~"devops::release" For example: - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/207978 includes ~"Category:Auto DevOps" and ~"Category:Kubernetes Management" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/207852 includes ~"Category:Release Governance" - https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/issues/34264 includes ~"Category:Audit Events" and ~"Category:Release Governance"

2020-02-26 10:27:54.685

Job Failed #450362191

Job [#450362191](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/jobs/450362191) failed for 58f58f85f934396aa1d1b9d27ec49cebc8792c53:

2020-02-24 22:45:06.133

Apply ~"Community Contribution" for merged_mrs

## Objective Minimize the amount of manual ~"Community contribution" application for merged community MRs like: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/merge_requests/23301#note_292568353 ## Proposal - [ ] Apply ~"Community contribution" for **open and merged** Merge Requests from `non-gitlab-org` members that are not already labelled ~"Community contribution".

2020-02-24 09:49:20.632

Job Failed #447201719

Job [#447201719](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/jobs/447201719) failed for 8f50ea662e700592959afdb7e516ba5f4c76de6d: Unlabelled issue triage reports are failing to be created due to a missing constant

2020-02-19 22:23:17.049

Deliverable labels removed from 12.8

Yesterday, the Deliverable labels were removed from open 12.8 Deliverables. It looks like it may have been done by the jobs in https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/quality/triage-ops/-/merge_requests/366 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/omnibus-gitlab/issues/4838 is an example where it removed the Deliverable label, without updating the milestone or setting the missed label? That the time this issue was a Deliverable assigned to 12.8 . In distribution we encountered this on a handful of issues that we were expecting to be moved to 12.9 cc\ @ljlane @mendeni