Seb, I cannot attend the meeting - have to run (it's 9:30pm here). But your reasoning about client-specified scope makes sense. As I already said, for tickets that are part of this client deliverable, there is no need to discuss them in a meeting.
-Andreas. On Jul 22, 2010, at 20:39 , Sebastian Benthall wrote: > While I agree that in general it would be good to have project milestones > triaged by a community process, in this case we have a scope that is well > specified by the client and not really up to community will. So I maintain > that this particular meeting would be a waste of time. > > However, despite that disagreement I'm overruled. So let's have a meeting. > > I think this meeting is urgent (because yesterday I was unable to answer a > question from Ariel about project priorities because we hadn't triaged, so I > was unable to do my job as project manager. I realize that this creates an > awkward situation and that we are in a transitional stage where > responsibilities are unclear.) > > How does 3:30pm eastern sound for this meeting? > > side comment - if we have milestones "prior to" 1.0beta, are we going to > close them next week in preparation for the beta release? why not > collapse them all into the beta or, if we aren't actually going to close > those milestones before the beta, mark them as 1.0+ ? > > Sure, why not. > > > On 07/22/2010 01:59 PM, Andreas Hocevar wrote: > > Seb, > > > > since this is a community project, I would definitely consider community > > involvement in a ticket triage. But I agree that the effort for a meeting > > could be minimized if you set milestones for features that are already > > agreed on or required for client deliverables. > > > > -Andreas. > > > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 19:46 , Sebastian Benthall wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:36 PM, David Winslow<[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> On 07/22/2010 01:25 PM, Sebastian Benthall wrote: > >> One thing I think would be helpful is a thorough ticket triage in > >> preparation for the upcoming 1.0beta release (which is still targeted for > >> August 2nd!) > >> > >> For this, I intend to use the following milestones: > >> > >> * 1.0beta - for FEATURES remaining to be implemented for 1.0 that are > >> not already listed in a prior milestone > >> * 1.0 - for bug reports relating to 1.0-supporting features > >> * 1.x - for features/bug reports desired for future milestones. > >> > >> If there are no objections, I'll get to this this afternoon. > >> > >> -- > >> Sebastian Benthall > >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > >> > >> What is the triage process going to be like? Should we plan on an IRC > >> meeting to discuss tickets? > >> > >> -d > >> > >> I was just planning on going for it as a first pass based on the stated > >> criteria, since I didn't think the application of those rules would be > >> controversial enough to warrant wasting time with a meeting. > >> > >> Do you think a meeting would be important in this case? > >> > >> As an intermediate option, I can keep a look out for potentially > >> controversial applications of the criteria and bring them up on this list > >> after. > >> > >> -- > >> Sebastian Benthall > >> OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Sebastian Benthall > OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org > -- Andreas Hocevar OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org/ Expert service straight from the developers.
