On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 09:00:02AM +0200, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: > > > On 05/02/2016 11:53 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > I'm not an expert at mapping out this kind of FAD, but since no one > > else has built the agenda, here's a starting point. I'm not looking > > to impose a heavy process here, and I would *strongly* discourage > > process mavens from bogging down that way. We want to keep ideas > > flowing and avoid ratholes. > > > > The agenda gets wider/looser as it goes on. This is purposely to > > avoid running up against a clock at a critical point. It's OK if we > > finish some things early; conversely, if we run late, we have slack > > time to account for that. > > > > We will have an audio dial-in posted on the FAD page shortly for > > remote folks who want to attend via phone. This room does not have > > built in video conferencing, but if that becomes necessary we can > > broadcast from a laptop. > > > > * * * > > Friday, May 6 (all times in EDT, UTC-4) > > > > The goal for day 1 is to figure out the workflows we need to support > > for the best possible engagement across all the people involved. > > > > * 09:30am - Arrive at lobby at Red Hat Tower -- I'm working with Remy > > so we can get everyone into the building appropriately. > > We have the "Fedora" room on 9th floor reserved, which is > > publicly accessible. > > * 09:45am - Introductions, get acquainted > > * 10:00am - Go around the room and state your meeting goals, pain > > points, what skills/resources you bring to the FAD > > * 11:00am - Map out high level user stories (we may have some already) > > -- I would ask that we *AVOID* any talk about any specific > > tools, markup, or implementation until done with this > > * 12:30pm - Lunch > > * 02:00pm - Finish user stories > > * 04:00pm - Start discussing currently available tools and the user > > stories they either hit or miss > > This reads like a premature point to begin the introduction of a tools > conversation. > > Depending on the goals identified, I believe that discussing how > (conceptually) to interconnect (without concern for tools) would be better. > For example, if there is a desire to see greater shared content then a > conversation around the type of content (i.e. Virtualization Documentation) > and Format (i.e. How Tos, Articles, Books, etc.) would yield more value. > This would seem to solidfy the what before trying to talk about the how. You're right, but this is part of the intended goals of the user stories. "I'm a content consumer, and I expect/need to..." as well as "I'm an expert content writer, and I expect/need to..." are ways to find those answers. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ The open source story continues to grow: http://opensource.com -- docs mailing list docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
