[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Setting the sights

Paul W. Frields said the following on 10/08/2007 05:30 PM Pacific Time:
The topic of our multiple task listings came up in the meeting.  No,
wait, that sounds like it just happened by itself; I raised the issue in
the context of our contributor deficiency.

In an only partially Swiftian moment, I suggested that we cull our task
list, wiping clean any tasks that we can't get done with the people and
resources we currently have.  After a little further thought, I propose
that we get rid of things on the list in the following order.  This is
just a proposal, and I'd be happy if people cared enough to argue about
it one way or another.  I'm prioritizing the list only so people can
easily respond to any level they find objectionable.

Where is the current list of tasks?  Do you need a task wrangler?

1. Any unstarted task targeted for FC-5 or before which has no owner.

2. Any unstarted task for which we have no contributor who knows how to
complete the task, regardless of ownership.

3. Any started task which has no current owner.

4. Any started task for which no updates have happened in >6 months,
regardless of ownership.

+1 to all

This seems like very fair criteria to me and reminds me of where we have moved to with Features--if there isn't a clear owner and nothing is happening, track them on a wish list so they aren't completely lost, but at the same time aren't being actively tracked for completion.


Speaking of which, I would also like to move for using Bugzilla for task
tracking, since (1) it's already there, (2) it has several components in
place in the "Fedora Docs" product we can use for any tasks that come
up, and (3) the rest of the project is using it.  (If the task tracker
changes for the rest of the project, any migration can include our tasks
as well.)  This may be a separate thread, though.  If anyone wants to
spin it off, please feel free.

I think a Trac instance for task tracking might be more manageable--similar to the way the Infrastructure group uses it?

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]