On 6/12/18 1:20 AM, Christopher wrote:
On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 10:46 PM Josh Elser<els...@apache.org>  wrote:

I'm just trying to point out the fallacy of meeting deadlines when the
criteria for "success" is undefined.


Why? I proposed the timeline to solicit opinions on it. Use whatever
subjective criteria you want to inform your own. If you have criteria that
you think won't be satisfied within that timeline, then raise them for
discussion.

Again, I am stating that a timeline with no recognition of what work needs to be done is silly. Yes, you can draw a line in the sand for when you want work to be done, but that's ineffective in making an actionable feature complete date.

If you want the date to be meaningful, you need to understand what work actually _has_ to be done and structure the date around that. Does this make sense?

If Jira is overburdened, move everything out and have people move things
back. We have multiple tools -- we should at least have one in use.
Otherwise, this just seems like there are decisions happening behind the
scenes.


You lost me. Every release, we triage (finish, reject, or bump) open
issues; nobody's done that yet for 2.0. That's all I was talking about with
regard to the issue tracker noise.

I thought you were saying that there were too many open issues on Jira to glean any information on outstanding work from it. I was trying to give a suggestion about how to move past that.

Reply via email to