Qgil added a comment.
>>! In T667#13578, @Awjrichards wrote:
> //Developers→Project management infrastructure and documentation for best
> practices.//
> I am a little unclear on what exactly this means
You are right. I have removed the infrastructure because it is implicit in the
goal of teams migrating (no infrastructure, no team will migrate). And then I
have based the measure of success not in the existence of the document (which
is just a tool) but about the effect of this tool (good collaboration between
teams and most active individual contributors, sharing a common protocol). I
will fine tune the measures of success at {T558}.
> //Developers→Burndown charts.//
> Similar to above, what does this mean exactly?
Removed. Not because we will not have this feature (we will have it) but
because, again, it is a feature contributing to the actual goal of teams
migrating to Phabricator.
> //Developers→Eliminate most uses of Trello/Mingle (Fundraising Tech exempt)//
> I've already heard some feedback about this particular goal, which seems to
> be making some teams uneasy.
Yeah, you are again right. Pushing teams to change tools "because we have a
deadline agreed with management" rarely helps, and frequently creates even more
resistance. Then again, it is reasonable to say that yes, one day WMF teams
will be all using Phabricator instead of Trello / Mingle. A realistic and
measurable goal in the spirit of this top priority is {T825}. This assures a
critical mass in terms of volume of activity and diversity of teams, a trend
with no return that the minority will end up following.
> Is this intended to be a mandate that every usage of Trello/Mingle is
> eliminated (with the exception of FR Tech)? Or is this intended to be a goal
> of the project to convince all the teams to abandon Trello/Mingle and flock
> to Phabricator?
With the goal reformulated, the mandate is still there, just not tied to end of
2014, and not needing to name any specific exceptions.
> How do non-team-specific based usages of Trello/Mingle fit into this rubric
> (eg Scrum of Scrums which uses a matrix view to represent work dependencies
> that can't be recreated in Phabricator)?
E v e r y b o d y
If Scrum of Scrums can't make it now because there is a feature missing, please
create the tasks required and join the minority that will stay longer out of
Phabricator with a justified reason.
> Also, I get uneasy when I see the word 'most' in a goal.
Yep, now it says "more than half" of teams and ongoing sprints.
> //Stretch goal:
> Developers→Basic plan for Phabricator as code review tool//
> I personally would prefer to see this as either a goal, or not a goal
Not a goal, then. I will keep it in the ECT goals for this quarter, but we will
play the regular game for the rest of the projects. There is a critical mass of
code review champions that have a declared personal interest in pushing
Phabricator in this front -- deprecating gitblit and Gerrit sooner than later.
There is an ongoing request of one of our developer for a part-time allocation
to this project, and others are already contributing at their own risk, on
their own time. In fact, not being an official top priority seems to be an
incentive for some. :)
TASK DETAIL
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T667
REPLY HANDLER ACTIONS
Reply to comment or attach files, or !close, !claim, !unsubscribe or !assign
<username>.
To: Qgil
Cc: wikibugs-l, Eloquence, Qgil, TrevorParscal, bd808, ori, Maryana,
Awjrichards, Rdicerb, howief, Tnegrin
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
