On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Haïkel <hguemar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 I think this is where this breaks down. If the Council and FPL is going to make strategic changes that impact the entire community then they cannot decide those things without a lot of discussion. Doing that in a limited attendance setting like Flock doesn't seem appropriate, even if they were presented beforehand. Let's not repeat past mistakes. Decisions are not made at Flock/FUDCon. > 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. Except that isn't what happens at Flock. Ideas are generated or discussed at Flock, and then they are presented to the community for discussion and refinement. Take this entire Board rework proposal for example. We're still working through it almost 2 months later and unless magic happens it will probably be another month before we actually officially change things. (Frankly, I'm hoping for magic). So if you align things with Flock, you're still looking at 15 months minimum before we reach consensus. 18 months for goal seats is not unreasonable. josh _______________________________________________ board-discuss mailing list board-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/board-discuss
