linaro-project-management team mailing list archive

[Ricardo Salveti <ricardo.salveti@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Zach Pfeffer <zach.pfeffer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Feedback:
>
> 2. Wouldn't it be simpler to just ditch Launchpad, and run everything
> out of Jira?

While Jira seems to be enough for the high level topics (cards), it
doesn't seems to be in a good place to be extended and replace
Launchpad.

If we really want to replace Launchpad (after all our effort to
improve it over the last months), I'd prefer to discuss again the
requirements and evaluate the tools to see if they are really matching
with what we need/want.

> 3. This is inflexible and inaccurate:
>
> "Which component a card belongs to. The components reflect the Linaro
> Engineering organisation structure - each component is an engineering
> Working Group"
>
> The Android team is not a WG yet it owns cards and most of the cards
> it would own would be composed of cross team efforts. With this we're
> just reinforcing the Silo system we have in place.

Here I need to agree that this is not always the case. Check the
big.LITTLE project, that is a huge cross-team effort, and the lead
here is more the PM than the WG itself.

> 4. Can you remove the stipple marks from the flow diagram?
>
> 5. We still need some way to capture recurring work.

If we don't want to track recurring work, that needs to at least be
part of the process description. Take the Linux Linaro project as
example, it'd be quite hard to have a matching card for the work that
needs to be done across all cycles (maintenance, fixes, improvements,
release, etc).

> 6. There's nothing about how tracking will be communicated - i.e. how
> techleads should communicate how a card is going via BP and WIs.

I believe this will be part of the bi-weekly status update call with the TL/PMs.

Cheers,
-- 
Ricardo Salveti de Araujo