linaro-project-management team mailing list archive

[Alexander Sack <asac@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Joey Stanford <joey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I think an ordered backlog is the wrong thing to do, but if that is what
> > I am being told to do then so be it.
>
> Ah, I get it now.
>
> For those projects which are tied to roadmap cards, they will all have
> a priority.  Yours generally are not and you get most, if not all, of
> your work from a steering committee vs the TSC.  So for infrastructure
> there's not the same sense of ordered process and priority as there is
> for TSC created cards.  My view is that your method works fine.  That
> said, if your manager wants you to pilot something else, feel free.
> I can see the need in status.l.o to represent the ordered backlog from
> all the engineering teams and if you want infrastructure's work
> visible there it may be necessary to move to an ordered backlog for
> that team.
>
>
I think first step for james is to move the stakeholder process to use
launchpad blueprints and backlog milestone replacing his CurrentProjects
wiki page. That should be possible right now. Of course, lack of some
features around project groups as mentioned in other mail are kind of an
issue for his to team whose work spreads across plenty launchpad project,
but then I don't see this as something that cannot be worked around.

And yes, I am fine to keep the infrastructure backlog in launchpad
_unordered_ for now.

Looking ahead, I can see how stakeholders might want to reach consent on
whether something in the backlog should "come right after next", "come
soon", "come at some point" or "probably come never" at some point and the
blueprint importance field feels suitable for that to me

The case that triggered this discussion might be a good example why one
might want to indicate priority of something in the backlog.

But anyway, step by step!

-- 

 - Alexander