On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:02 PM Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 2:37 AM Leigh Griffin
<lgriffin(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:38 PM Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com>
wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 5:56 AM Leigh Griffin <lgriffin(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> >
>> > We haven't ironed out the full details but what was incredibly clear
to us was that Gitlab was the decision to make. The next step in getting
there is what we are engaging in now to get thoughts and suggestions and
expect several threads in that capacity from a technical perspective in the
coming weeks and months.
>>
>>
>> It is not incredibly clear to the respondents on devel@. I don't care
>> to imagine what stronger disagreement on this particular point looks
>> like.
>
>
> I respect that there is disagreement but Gitlab is the choice we are
making.
Why this choice?
To distill it down:
- Gitlab has more features that are needed right now for our stakeholder
group
- Gitlab has an entire company dedicated to roadmap features, we do not.
- Gitlab has better resiliency and uptime, we offer an SLE on an app that
is not meeting our mission statement but is consuming a lot of our time
- Gitlab scales better, Pagure has scale issues
- CPE do not own an application that will consume 100% of our available
team capacity from here on in to bridge the gap, to keep the system stood
up, to move towards an SLA model and to keep apace with new innovations
That's what's not clear. And it's not fair to call
this mere disagreement, because the decision can't even be properly
absorbed. It is prima facie not an open or transparent process, yet is
being claimed to have been. That contradiction is not trust enhancing.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 4:27 AM Iñaki Ucar <iucar(a)fedoraproject.org>
wrote:
>> >
>> > I was referring to, and I was expecting, an open conversation about
>> > the User Story list, an open analysis of the requirements list. In
>> > other words:
>> >
>> > 1. Open conversation to gather requirements. Done.
>> > 2. Publication of User Story list.
>> > 3. Open conversation to discuss (2).
>> > 4. Publication of the final decision.
>> >
>> > I was expecting (3), and it's missing.
>>
>>
>> I concur, and don't think the missing piece has been adequately
>> addressed. There's a reason why there's bewilderment at the decision,
>> it's not ignorable.
>
>
> How would you like us to address it more clearly? Fedora has had the
publication of its User Story list, a threads worth of discussion on it
occured and it was submitted. As have other stakeholder groups. I think the
crux here is that we didn't publish the entire stakeholder User Stories for
dissemination to each individual stakeholder group. With each group valuing
something different, as is obvious from the discussion around individual
requirements that has occured in several threads here, we didn't feel the
value would have been there. That's on me for not looping the comms back in
and I apologise for that.
>
>>
>> Were there deliberations by CPE Team in between (2) and (4)?
>
> Yes, several hundred person hours worth of analysis, meetings and
dissecting the requirements.
It would be addressed more clearly by seeing the summary,
distillation, metric, method, by which those hundreds of hours were
turned into the decision.
I have promised several times that the feature gaps will land as a backlog
addition for Pagure and I can happily share out a matrix from a User Story
/ Feature perspective and additional comments. Stay tuned for that.
These entire threads are a verbose way of saying "show your work."
>
>>
>> Is there
>> a record of those deliberations?
>
>
> No, they were mostly video calls / in person meetings and the result is
the User Story list and decision document for sharing.
I think a summary of the first hour of these several hundred hours,
and the last hour, would be useful. There's no way to reconstruct
this?
I mean if you want the summary of the first hour it was a strategy plan for
grouping the requirements and interviewing stakeholders / communicating
with our team on technical details. The last hour was the summary mail that
was sent out to communicate the decision.
Deliberative bodies should be keeping notes, summary of major
decisions, pros, cons, liabilities, prioritization of conflicting
requirements, what things are in and out of scope, etc. There must be
something to show.
We have multiple documents with requirements, notes, matrixes, meeting
minutes which I'm happy to distill down and share out as indicated above.
--
Chris Murphy
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Leigh Griffin
Engineering Manager
Red Hat Waterford <
https://www.redhat.com/>
Communications House
Cork Road, Waterford City
lgriffin(a)redhat.com
M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin
@redhatjobs <
https://twitter.com/redhatjobs> redhatjobs
<
https://www.facebook.com/redhatjobs> @redhatjobs
<
https://instagram.com/redhatjobs>
<
https://red.ht/sig>