On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:02 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:38 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > We haven't ironed out the full details but what was incredibly clear to us was that Gitlab was the decision to make. The next step in getting there is what we are engaging in now to get thoughts and suggestions and expect several threads in that capacity from a technical perspective in the coming weeks and months.
>>
>>
>> It is not incredibly clear to the respondents on devel@. I don't care
>> to imagine what stronger disagreement on this particular point looks
>> like.
>
>
> I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are making.
Why this choice?
To distill it down:
- Gitlab has more features that are needed right now for our stakeholder group
- Gitlab has an entire company dedicated to roadmap features, we do not.
- Gitlab has better resiliency and uptime, we offer an SLE on an app that is not meeting our mission statement but is consuming a lot of our time
- Gitlab scales better, Pagure has scale issues
- CPE do not own an application that will consume 100% of our available team capacity from here on in to bridge the gap, to keep the system stood up, to move towards an SLA model and to keep apace with new innovations
That's what's not clear. And it's not fair to call
this mere disagreement, because the decision can't even be properly
absorbed. It is prima facie not an open or transparent process, yet is
being claimed to have been. That contradiction is not trust enhancing.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:27 AM Iñaki Ucar <iucar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > I was referring to, and I was expecting, an open conversation about
>> > the User Story list, an open analysis of the requirements list. In
>> > other words:
>> >
>> > 1. Open conversation to gather requirements. Done.
>> > 2. Publication of User Story list.
>> > 3. Open conversation to discuss (2).
>> > 4. Publication of the final decision.
>> >
>> > I was expecting (3), and it's missing.
>>
>>
>> I concur, and don't think the missing piece has been adequately
>> addressed. There's a reason why there's bewilderment at the decision,
>> it's not ignorable.
>
>
> How would you like us to address it more clearly? Fedora has had the publication of its User Story list, a threads worth of discussion on it occured and it was submitted. As have other stakeholder groups. I think the crux here is that we didn't publish the entire stakeholder User Stories for dissemination to each individual stakeholder group. With each group valuing something different, as is obvious from the discussion around individual requirements that has occured in several threads here, we didn't feel the value would have been there. That's on me for not looping the comms back in and I apologise for that.
>
>>
>> Were there deliberations by CPE Team in between (2) and (4)?
>
> Yes, several hundred person hours worth of analysis, meetings and dissecting the requirements.
It would be addressed more clearly by seeing the summary,
distillation, metric, method, by which those hundreds of hours were
turned into the decision.
I have promised several times that the feature gaps will land as a backlog addition for Pagure and I can happily share out a matrix from a User Story / Feature perspective and additional comments. Stay tuned for that.
These entire threads are a verbose way of saying "show your work."
>
>>
>> Is there
>> a record of those deliberations?
>
>
> No, they were mostly video calls / in person meetings and the result is the User Story list and decision document for sharing.
I think a summary of the first hour of these several hundred hours,
and the last hour, would be useful. There's no way to reconstruct
this?
I mean if you want the summary of the first hour it was a strategy plan for grouping the requirements and interviewing stakeholders / communicating with our team on technical details. The last hour was the summary mail that was sent out to communicate the decision.
Deliberative bodies should be keeping notes, summary of major
decisions, pros, cons, liabilities, prioritization of conflicting
requirements, what things are in and out of scope, etc. There must be
something to show.
We have multiple documents with requirements, notes, matrixes, meeting minutes which I'm happy to distill down and share out as indicated above.
--
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Leigh Griffin
Engineering Manager
Communications House
Cork Road, Waterford City
lgriffin@xxxxxxxxxx
M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
