On 24 February 2015 at 02:32, Andre Klapper <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 23:47 -0800, Erik Moeller wrote: > > I propose a "Roadmap" project in Phabricator. Tasks in this project > > would be typically epics with rough anticipated calendar-level > > delivery dates and clear, understandable task descriptions. > > > Tasks would be arranged on a Phabricator workboard like so: > > > February 2015: Features > > February 2015: Platform > > February 2015: Apps > > If tasks are really "typically epics", there's an existing project with > an unused workboard: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/epic/ > > Is there a good enough reason to not use that workboard (plus keeping > epics that are way too "epic" in the Backlog column)? > > How many Roadmap items will *not* be epics? > > Having another project "Roadmap" with >50% of its tasks being already > part of the "Epic" project sounds like potential duplication. > Plus keeping track of epics might be one of Wikimedia's problems and I > don't think that currently anyone regularly looks at the list of open > "Epic" tasks anyway. I'm happy to be proven wrong. > I agree that the "Epic" project adds no or little value right now, and re-purposing it to be a roadmap could work. However, in this thread Erik's pointed out that a potentially very large number of potential (unscheduled) roadmap items, epics or not, will be missing from this view of the overall Wikimedia project management system. Unless we're going to have a ghetto of "unscheduled ideas"? J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, Editing Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. [email protected] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
