PRDs

["Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"]

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

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.

>
> 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.

JBG

1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Johannbg/FOSSP#Stage_Gate.27s_Process