librelist archives

Re: [geonode] Upcoming ticket triage

From:

Sebastian Benthall

Date:

2010-07-22 @ 19:47

Ok.  Thanks for discussing this, David and Andreas, and other who
participating in the discussion in IRC just now.

Based on those conversations and this thread, I'm going to go ahead and do
this.  If I see anything that seems like it is ambiguously part of the
scope, I will bring it up on the list.  In general, I hope that what goes on
in Trac is seen as a subject open to community action and review, even if
there isn't a synchronous meeting about it.

In the future, I agree that it would be much better if we could organize
things so that the community could decide what goes in the release.  Here is
the main challenges toward accomplishing that:

Work on the software is primarily funded by a client with strong ideas about
the project direction.  The fact is that most of us would not be working on
this project without that funding.  How do we balance the requirements of
the funders (which includes both features AND deadlines) against the
community will?

Does anybody have any ideas as to how to provide more community autonomy in
the release process?  I think this is something we (as a production team, as
a community) should make it a priority to resolve by the *next* release.


On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Andreas Hocevar <ahocevar@opengeo.org>wrote:

> Seb,
>
> I cannot attend the meeting - have to run (it's 9:30pm here). But your
> reasoning about client-specified scope makes sense. As I already said, for
> tickets that are part of this client deliverable, there is no need to
> discuss them in a meeting.
>
> -Andreas.
>
> On Jul 22, 2010, at 20:39 , Sebastian Benthall wrote:
>
> > While I agree that in general it would be good to have project milestones
> triaged by a community process, in this case we have a scope that is well
> specified by the client and not really up to community will.  So I maintain
> that this particular meeting would be a waste of time.
> >
> > However, despite that disagreement I'm overruled.  So let's have a
> meeting.
> >
> > I think this meeting is urgent (because yesterday I was unable to answer
> a question from Ariel about project priorities because we hadn't triaged, so
> I was unable to do my job as project manager.  I realize that this creates
> an awkward situation and that we are in a transitional stage where
> responsibilities are unclear.)
> >
> > How does 3:30pm eastern sound for this meeting?
> >
> > side comment - if we have milestones "prior to" 1.0beta, are we going to
> > close them next week in preparation for the beta release?  why not
> > collapse them all into the beta or, if we aren't actually going to close
> > those milestones before the beta, mark them as 1.0+ ?
> >
> > Sure, why not.
> >
> >
> > On 07/22/2010 01:59 PM, Andreas Hocevar wrote:
> > > Seb,
> > >
> > > since this is a community project, I would definitely consider
> community involvement in a ticket triage. But I agree that the effort for a
> meeting could be minimized if you set milestones for features that are
> already agreed on or required for client deliverables.
> > >
> > > -Andreas.
> > >
> > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 19:46 , Sebastian Benthall wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM, David Winslow<dwinslow@opengeo.org>
>  wrote:
> > >> On 07/22/2010 01:25 PM, Sebastian Benthall wrote:
> > >> One thing I think would be helpful is a thorough ticket triage in
> preparation for the upcoming 1.0beta release (which is still targeted for
> August 2nd!)
> > >>
> > >> For this, I intend to use the following milestones:
> > >>
> > >>   * 1.0beta - for FEATURES remaining to be implemented for 1.0 that
> are not already listed in a prior milestone
> > >>   * 1.0 - for bug reports relating to 1.0-supporting features
> > >>   * 1.x - for features/bug reports desired for future milestones.
> > >>
> > >> If there are no objections, I'll get to this this afternoon.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sebastian Benthall
> > >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> > >>
> > >> What is the triage process going to be like?  Should we plan on an IRC
> meeting to discuss tickets?
> > >>
> > >> -d
> > >>
> > >> I was just planning on going for it as a first pass based on the
> stated criteria, since I didn't think the application of those rules would
> be controversial enough to warrant wasting time with a meeting.
> > >>
> > >> Do you think a meeting would be important in this case?
> > >>
> > >> As an intermediate option, I can keep a look out for potentially
> controversial applications of the criteria and bring them up on this list
> after.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Sebastian Benthall
> > >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sebastian Benthall
> > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
> >
>
> --
> Andreas Hocevar
> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/
> Expert service straight from the developers.
>
>


-- 
Sebastian Benthall
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org