On 1 July 2014 11:52, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dealing with failure should be something we do regardless of the reach of goals.On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is the problem with asking about success.. you have to deal with
> 'failure' as it becomes more likely if you are going to be ambitious.
Yes it should, but (1) this is a big ship and (2) it looks like a sieve when you are inside it. Speaking as a former board member, we tend towards plugging the leak and getting to the next one versus anything that survives 1-2 releases. We tend towards saying we want to define success and then after the release getting caught up in the latest fedora-devel/ambassadors/FUDCON operatics and by the time that is dealt with not having gotten back to what we were going to try and measure in the first place.
> Personally I would prefer us to push more on how we deal with 'failure' andIt makes sense, but it isn't particularly helpful in answering the
> embrace it. How do we learn from it, how do we incorporate it into our
> structure and push more towards 'we are aiming to be the #1 choice for
> developers/system administrators' but knowing we are going to fail a lot to
> get there and most likely fail in the goal itself.. instead we focus more on
> the journey.
>
> Hope the above makes some sort of sense.
question. Saying "deal with failure" without having targets to reach
or miss is as ambiguous as talking about success. If you have some
goals you think would be measurable, please continue with those.
Well the first thing is figuring out the following:
1) What can be measured and how is it measured.
2) Which things that can be measured mean anything and which ones are 'fluff'. {A}.
3) A definition of success that can be used towards each of those measurements and a mitigation plan for failure.
4) Who gets the full time job to manage each goal. {B}
Anyway, what I would like for a goal is a full usability test after each release with the results incorporated into the next release. This means that a set of tests are defined as what meets 'usability'... they are tested using documented methods by a defined 'third' party (mostly to deal with 'Well the 'Z group' people would of course say this passed usability and I still can't get this to work). The results are published, discussed and a plan to work towards fixing whatever 'pain' points came out of the tests are to be met. Also each year, the tests are meant to be more comprehensive so that if we only test login/logout release A, then A+1 its login/logout, find app/launch app/close app etc (overly simplified).
{A} Two ones I can give you as almost complete fluff is active account numbers and web traffic. Account numbers are filled with lots of ghost accounts of either people using the account to try and measure how active Fedora is for their own analytics company, to spammers, to one time contributors who got interested and never went beyond that. [Or the string of revenge accounts that seem to have been coming up where some ex-boyfriend signs up their ex to various places as the equivalent of signing them up for magazines they didn't want] The second fluff is website traffic. It takes a lot of work to figure out what is really important and how it is used. We have a ton of wiki articles which are 'dead' (old releases, content which doesn't make sense with current release, users who no longer exist, etc) they actually get a lot of traffic... why? some of it is bots, some of it is someone set up an archive cron job of webpages they mirror and forgot about it, etc etc. [Or the helpful new user who wants to show that Fedora is more popular than Ubuntu and sets up a bunch of amazon machines to push page views up... that thankfully hasn't happened in a couple of years but used to when we put up stats.]
{B} This is the one that has pretty much killed this in the past with boards. We talked about it and then eventually realized that it was going to take a full-time person for most goals to actively be met. We tried having a board-member assigned to it, but once it gets over 10-15 hours a week of work... it falls into the 'I have a real job which needs me to do something people'. What we could accomplish was the general... 'did we release a distro that was bootable, workable, and generally were happy with' because we had people who were already full-time to make sure that goal was met.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
_______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
