On 11/9/05, Greg DeKoenigsberg <gdk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Should we have gone through more iterations, or would more iterations
> have dragged things out even longer?
Strictly speaking I think neither. I think the missing element isn't
iterations or time per iteration.. but an aspect of choice, limited
choice.
Whether it be a discussion of default background, or codename, or
logo. I'd like to see 2 or 3 reasonable choices presented for feedback
before the final decision.
To me most discussion should run sort of like this:
1) very free-form brain-storming discussion with lots of crazy crap
from this debate comes a sense of bounds as to constraints on the
solution space.
The more variety of out of bounds ideas you can generate the
better you understand
the boundary of the problem. And you hope to get a sense of
important themes that a
solution should try to incorporate.This is the discussion that
puts the item on the map
as an action item. No-one should expect a solution to come fully
formed from
this discussion.
2) applying the constraints, task a team or individual to spin up 2
or 3 solutions which
individually meet the constraints but provide different
interpretations as to mix of
important themes. Make sure its clear how the final decision is
going to be made at this
point.
3) focused feedback discussion on those specific 2 or 3 choices.
This allows for some ability to compare and contrast between the
presented choices,
instead of degrading into a simple "this sucks." Most likely, all
choices will be equally
recieved across the spectrum of interested people.. publicly
validating the fact that any
of the set of choices will serve equally well/poorly.
4) final decision is made however was decided in step 2.
If we fell down in this discussion, its in the fact that we only had
one draft for consideration which met the constraints at step 2.
-jef
--
Fedora-marketing-list mailing list
Fedora-marketing-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-marketing-list
