[Pulp-dev] Roadmap Challenges
Jeff Ortel
jortel at redhat.com
Tue Apr 10 19:40:59 UTC 2018
From a tooling perspective:
we have had good success in the past with fully defining and designing a
feature in a Redmine Story. The story (description) provides a good way
to capture (and edit) the overall design and (comments) support a
discussion history. Then, the implementation can be broken down and
tracked by related sub-tasks which are aligned to sprints and cross
core/plugin boundaries. The feature is complete when all the
implementation tasks are complete.
On 04/06/2018 02:00 PM, Robin Chan wrote:
> Brian,
>
> To bring this back to your original question, here are some comments
> in line.
>
> Agree w/#1 - I have observed a few different ways that this problems
> has been solved by developers. The requirement here is "I need a way
> to understand all the work and deliverables associated with a
> feature." This question comes down to how do we track of deliverables.
> This is I think secondary and not as much of a problem as the next
> question.
>
> #2 - This is essentially a question of planning deliverables. Your
> descriptions is "how will someone know if a feature is committed to"?
> I think full planning is not necessary for commitment. I believe that
> "full planning" part could go in #1 in terms of tracking status. I
> think the question is actually "how will someone know if a feature is
> committed to and when it is committed by" - addition of a time or time
> frame.
>
> In my experience, feature work generally went like this:
> 1. Define feature/problem to be solved.
> 2. Investigate:
> - refine requirements/problem definition
> - do enough design or planning of tasks to come up with estimate
> of work
> 3. Commit to work or not
> 4. execute along list of tasks, refine list as you learn.
>
> Steps 1-3 is part of roadmap planning (higher level planning) and #3-4
> is sprint planning.
>
>
> I think the problem with using the sprint field as we have used it, is
> that if you add something to a sprint, the Scrum definition would lead
> people to assume that the team is committing to it at the end of a
> defined sprint period. We do not. This major departure from industry
> standard does not serve us well in my opinion. We have kept items on
> sprints for many months and then removed it. Even if we were able to
> convince folks that our definition of sprint was "our next few
> sprints" of work, we don't have any accountability that we are
> actually keeping our commitment here and the folks wanting something
> on the sprint don't have any idea if something added to a sprint will
> be there in 3 weeks or 12 weeks. I think others in software are
> reasonable in understanding that software deliveries aren't going to
> be there until they are, but I think our immediate focus on what is in
> process (impending delivery/next build) and on some of the larger
> deliveries.
>
> Robin
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Brian Bouterse <bbouters at redhat.com
> <mailto:bbouters at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> I want to start a discussion around how Pulp does roadmap planning
> and some of our current challenges. This is the pre-discussion
> part of a future PUP. I want to collaborate on characterizing the
> problems first before we discuss solutions.
>
> # The surface problem statement
>
> It very difficult for external stakeholders to answer some simple
> questions about any given feature:
>
> * How would a user use this feature exactly?
> * Is it completed? If not, how much is left to do?
> * Which release is this going in?
> * Has this feature been fully planned and accepted as a committed
> to piece of work?
>
> # deeper problems
>
> I believe there are two deeper problems contributing to the
> problem above.
>
> 1. Any given feature is typically spread across multiple Redmine
> tickets. There may be the first implementation, followup changes,
> adjustments, bugfixes, reworks, docs followups, etc. This makes it
> practically hard to have the information necessary to answer the
> first 3 questions ^.
>
> 2. Devs of core or a plugin have no clear way to clearly signal
> that a feature has been fully planned and is committed to. The
> 'sprint' field has been used heretofore, but the recent feedback
> suggests that mechanism may not be the best way to indicate that
> work has been fully planned and accepted. We need a clear way to
> answer the last question ^.
>
> Do you agree or disagree with these problem statements? Do you
> have anything to add about the problem statements?
>
> Thanks!
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com <mailto:Pulp-dev at redhat.com>
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
> <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pulp-dev mailing list
> Pulp-dev at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/pulp-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/pulp-dev/attachments/20180410/3fd501bd/attachment.htm>
More information about the Pulp-dev
mailing list