6:27 a.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/19/2013 02:50 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> The main alternative to using
PRDs that I'm aware of is the agile
> model, which I don't think we're following. But even in agile you
> have to put requirements together in the form of user stories
> [1]...
> That being said: isn't it a "Pandora's
Box" to start geeking out
> on software development methodologies? Is this really the best
> use of our time? We need requirements, no matter what.
> Please, can we just come up with a requirements
document?
For the first stage gate was just something that I intended Stephen
to look into not share with the rest of the world before I could
form a proposal and it being shot down without me even having one
but given that I had expect our discussion might lead to more
confusion I started writing this late last ( and into the ) night
[1] which hopefully clears things up a bit.
Again requirement documents are *part of* the stage gate process.
Apologies, Jóhann. I probably did jump the gun on bringing that up. I
did note in my summary though that I was talking about that being the
process for promoting roles to "featured" status and NOT the process
for the Server Platform itself. I think perhaps that got overlooked.
Thanks
for putting that together. I'll take a look today.
On 11/19/2013 04:44 AM, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> Hi,
> I read this in Stephen's summary from the FOSSP
thread and I
> wanted to discuss it:
>> == Role Process == Jóhann does not like the term PRD
and feels
>> that the term as defined[4] doesn't really make sense for a
>> community project. Moreover, he feels it doesn't make sense
>> when applied to the role projects. He envisions that each role
>> we harden and tie into our deployment API should be developed
>> as a project of its own, following a different (non-PRD-driven)
>> process. He suggested that Stage-Gate[5] might be a useful
>> approach for this.
> Why doesn't a PRD make sense for a community project? Why,
> specifically is having a PRD at odds with the product having
> various roles?
I think this is getting misunderstood.
I've never said it should not be used.
I have disliked where it's and how it's trying to be used as in
applied to the "Server Community" as opposed to the "Server Role"
and Server
To reiterate (because I think I failed to make the point properly in
my late-night email yesterday), no none is disagreeing that we don't
need a requirements and goal document. As I understand it, Jóhann
feels that we probably need to do this differently for both the
Platform and the Roles. I am in general agreement on this, though my
stance was that for the January deliverable, it's probably acceptable
for the Platform PRD to include the line "A process will be
established for promoting services into featured roles".
If you looked at each application in one of the server roles you
see a "links to PRD?" behind that application.
> Stage-Gate doesn't appear to be a substitute for
creating a
> PRD...
It is not however it is what can be applied to our "Server
Communities"
PRD's ( or requirements documents ) are part of various stages.
> it looks like a standard software development process, to be
> honest.
Last time I checked we are in the business of delivering software.
> And you could say we're following it right now - Stage 0 /
> Discovery was the Fedora.next proposal and iterations, Stage 1 /
> Scoping is the ongoing working group discussions... But please
> correct me if I'm wrong
No you are correct stage gate is just a phase driven approach as in
once you complete stage one you go to stage to etc.
In my attempts to clarify, I think I used mud instead of spring water...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlKLWUYACgkQeiVVYja6o6O7GACfTxjzX+ni2oA8JLgpZBh99YwO
HnsAni4qtWGnfQskRqe0sq16Mjy68B0M
=c29u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----