- From: Bob Holt <bob@bocoup.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:57:54 -0400
- To: Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com>
- Cc: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>, public-test-infra@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAFf+SkPGLW5qxJJ4h0tU=XJCXwKK1YrsGgwJQt+pgjHsfhdk0A@mail.gmail.com>
Re: labels, and building on James's suggestions I propose: - priority:urgent - priority:roadmap - priority:backlog The second one is still a tricky one, but to me, it conveys an intent to work. I think it's difficult to milestone in a community project where participants are coming from all different project management paradigms and expectations. It's not impossible, but it's difficult. In the current governance, I imagine when things are triaged into priority:roadmap, there would be some sort of IRC/GitHub discussion prioritizing it against the rest of the work. If we could settle on a milestone naming convention, that could get added/edited after those discussions. On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:32 AM, Philip Jägenstedt <foolip@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 11:21 AM James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk> > wrote: > >> On 08/08/17 20:45, Philip Jägenstedt wrote: >> >> > I think we can something workable with just priority labels. What would >> > people like? I think that low/medium/high/urgent is the largest number >> of >> > priorities that could be useful, but 3 could also suffice. >> > low/medium/high/urgent would correspond fairly well to the P3-0 that >> > crbug.com has, would anyone mind it? >> >> I feel like the three priorities are approximately "this needs to be >> fixed asap", "this is something we will work on in the next weeks", >> "this is something which isn't going to get attention soon". So that's >> three priorities. Maybe there's some difference between "this is >> something we would like to work on but don't have time right now" and >> "this is something we would never spend time on but would take patches >> for". So I can also see a case for four. But I would like it to be >> documented (and if possible obvious from the labels) what the actual >> expectations around various priorities are. I don't think that >> low/medium/etc. or 0/1/2/3 really conveys well. Something more like >> priority:urgent, priority:<not sure how to convey this one>, >> priority:backlog and priority:patches-accepted would be better. >> > > Getting back to this finally... > > Just 3 priorities seems fine to me, with priority:backlog as the lowest > prio. Maybe combine with difficulty:easy for people who are looking for > contribution opportunities. > > The trouble is with the middle priority, where priority:soon doesn't quite > cut it I think. For all work that is planned, I think that milestones would > actually make sense, would anyone mind that? For work that is planned > quarterly, it could be milestones like "2017 Q4", but it could just as well > be grouped into projects like "WebRTC testing effort" or similar. > > Bob, WDYT? >
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2017 11:58:18 UTC