Hi martin, On 08/04/2017 09:13, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Mehdi Dogguy <me...@dogguy.org> [2017-03-30 02:13 +0200]: >> I do not remember myself talking about S.M.A.R.T criteria in personal >> discussions to be honest :-) or if it ever happened, maybe it was >> because it was mentioned in my platform and elsewhere. > […] >> But anyways... I am not particularly fond of S.M.A.R.T criteria >> […] > > How do you reconcile these two statements? Why do you want your > roadmap to consist of S.M.A.R.T. items? >
My statement is *not* "I do not like S.M.A.R.T". I explained in my previous mail why it is relevant to use it to follow roadmap goals. It helps us to measure progress of each goal. >> In general, I have followed the same methodology for all subjects >> I've worked on during my DPL term: I have installed a kanboard [2] >> instance on my server ; created a project (let's call it DPL) and >> created tasks for every subject. Depending on the nature of >> subject, I added sub-tasks sometimes. Comments were also used to >> track the progress of the task. > > Would you see any value in having this publicly visible on official > project resources? > Of course. I can. But, I didn't find a way to leave some tasks in "private" mode though. And I consider it a blocker. Instead of migrating my current setup, I can try to use a public instance in the future. -- Mehdi
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
