On Wednesday 28 October 2009 10:59:52 Nicu Buculei wrote:
On 10/28/2009 11:33 AM, Martin Sourada wrote:
> I think the F12 schedule worked rather well, we slipped a few times a
> few days or a week and skipped most of the wallpaper refreshes -- I
> think it's unnecessary to have that many wallpaper refreshes. I've tried
> to keep in sync with our work the Key milestones  so you can compare
> what we did in time and when we did it.
A characteristic of this cycle was we had some *very good* designs *very
early* in the process, we got complacent about them and a long period of
inactivity occurred (this is why I think we missed refreshes).
Then close to the Beta we tried a refreshed look and post-beta due to
*some* fedback, a major and unexpected refresh occurred.
Indeed! I totally agree with you. So we need more feedback - probably through
more refreshes for alpha, more communication out of design team. It's really
too late in time after beta (that's was one problem with F12 schedules - it
was bad communicated what does it mean alpha and beta for F12 - beta is now
practically final release, release candidate).
> If there's a calendar instance at our sites (I remember
> talking about it on infra, but don't know whether they implemented it),
> it would nice to load the schedule there -- calendar with highlights is
> faster to follow than table with dates and not everyone uses one
For the last few releases we have a recurrent motif: some key decision
makers stay silent for most of the development cycle and very late in
the process complain and require a complete (or at least major)
redesign. This is a serious bug in our process.