Setting the sights

[John Poelstra]

Paul W. Frields said the following on 10/08/2007 05:30 PM Pacific Time:
> The topic of our multiple task listings came up in the meeting.  No,
> wait, that sounds like it just happened by itself; I raised the issue in
> the context of our contributor deficiency.
> 
> In an only partially Swiftian moment, I suggested that we cull our task
> list, wiping clean any tasks that we can't get done with the people and
> resources we currently have.  After a little further thought, I propose
> that we get rid of things on the list in the following order.  This is
> just a proposal, and I'd be happy if people cared enough to argue about
> it one way or another.  I'm prioritizing the list only so people can
> easily respond to any level they find objectionable.

Where is the current list of tasks?  Do you need a task wrangler?
 
> 1. Any unstarted task targeted for FC-5 or before which has no owner.
> 
> 2. Any unstarted task for which we have no contributor who knows how to
> complete the task, regardless of ownership.
> 
> 3. Any started task which has no current owner.
> 
> 4. Any started task for which no updates have happened in >6 months,
> regardless of ownership.
> 

+1 to all

This seems like very fair criteria to me and reminds me of where we have moved to with Features--if there isn't a clear owner and nothing is happening, track them on a wish list so they aren't completely lost, but at the same time aren't being actively tracked for completion.

<CUT>

> Speaking of which, I would also like to move for using Bugzilla for task
> tracking, since (1) it's already there, (2) it has several components in
> place in the "Fedora Docs" product we can use for any tasks that come
> up, and (3) the rest of the project is using it.  (If the task tracker
> changes for the rest of the project, any migration can include our tasks
> as well.)  This may be a separate thread, though.  If anyone wants to
> spin it off, please feel free.

I think a Trac instance for task tracking might be more manageable--similar to the way the Infrastructure group uses it?  

John