2014-09-26 21:06 GMT+02:00 Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Some of the goals will be release-focused; for others, a release may be the > implementation, but, say, once alpha ships satisfactorily there's really no > more to do at a high level; and others may not be connected to the release > cycle at all. > This is how I understood it. > So, I was thinking more the other way — not 18 months as an exact term, but > that we'd reevaluate every six months or a year and see where we stand on > each, whether something that was urgent is mostly solved, whether new > community goals are not well covered, and so on. 18 months just comes in as > the timeframe to be considering when opening up new targets — something > that's bigger than the here-and-now, but which also has a tangible result in > mind. > Wouldn't it be better to synchronize goals assessments with Flock ? The drawback is that would set to either one or two years the terms. But since not every goal would require the same amount of work, it's perfectly fine. Before Flock: FPL announces a Call for Ideas for the definition of our next goals Flock n: discussing proposals/ideas and trimming them down Shortly after, FPL + council announces selected goals Flock n+1: assessment 1Y goals and mid-term assessment for 2Y goals Flock n+2: etc ... That wouldn't prevent FPL + council to have internally assessment of progression every 6 months or even every quarter. Besides, this would be more inclusive (I assume that representatives or any people there would champion their fellow missing contributors proposals there) Well, I got pretty much down on details, so I'll focus on *one* little change request. The main point is: is it possible to synchronize with Flock rather than the suggested 18 months, and involve the community in strategic planning ? :) Some of our most exciting recent changes (Fedora.Next, badges, Governance.Next) did happen at Flock. I promise I won't request any other change :) Perfect is the enemy of good, we need efficient and self-evolving able organization and here it is. If there are more adjustments, well, it's the work of the future governance body folks. :) H. > -- > Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > board-discuss mailing list > board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
