- From: Doug May <intuedge@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 15:31:17 -0700
- To: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
- Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABPs60Fj821ey+_aHXx6bkW+jq2qEx1rTU7siK-=FtkyqUatqg@mail.gmail.com>
Great work on picking TBG and getting us so far along on the migration, Garbee. tl/dr: DougM recommends we start immediately but slowly with the project management side of the tool, and think about how our project and content systems tie together as we prepare for the next doc sprint I strongly endorse Doug(shepazu)'s comments on the extreme benefits of having our content system and our project system tied together. The first piece of this that I'm not clear on is whether we were expecting to start creating bug reports to flag documentation issues, or are we sticking to the flags on mediawiki and managing it all with those great new reports that Scott is doing? The usefulness of TBG as a way to measure and track progress will hinge on having the work to be done trackable from TBG, so maybe there's some RESTful thinking to be done on how to best do that. Similarly, Doug's question on whether/how users can create bug reports directly from the "commenting system" depends on which commenting system we mean, and where the bugs are getting filed. I know that Julee and Doug and others are already planning to look at how to move forward on the project management side. I recommend that a small team work through one example project (for milestones, and probably more), and gather notes as they/we go, and then look at a template (loose term) for how to try the next few projects. As Julee pointed out, it's intuitive enough (as project tools go) that we should be able to get Garbee out of the critical path for initial engagement, and we'll be able to pass along a shortened path forward for the next willing team. There's too big a gap between the generic capabilities of the product and whatever limited use makes sense for us, for Garbee to sort through a priori, when a few us can hash out something as a reasonable first cut, and reduce any further second-guess configuration work for him (and help drop his stress levels back into the sustainable range). I also recommend we try the next doc sprint 4/3 as a project planning exercise, at a minimum, as well as possibly creating a backlog for participants to pull from. I would love to see us take a crack at drafting a workflow for getting stuff worked on and reviewed during the event, so we could at least test it on a few willing participants. I assume we can balance this with the rest of the efforts to make the event inviting and productive for new and returning volunteers (getting set up with the sites and access tools, identifying what they might do to make the biggest or most enjoyable difference, and then moving the web forward, with some intelligent noting of progress, status, and individual contributions, as the work flows). Treating the doc sprint as a PM exercise also gives us a way to be smart about the many fronts on which we're trying to make progress, and try to get that picture better tied together. It'll also make it easier for participants to direct and focus their feedback (what works, and what doesn't, and what's still missing), and to jump in and help (hint -- anything we wished we'd done as prep will be sitting there as a pullable task the next morning, for the much larger team to tackle, or at least vote it up for next time). DougM
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2013 22:31:48 UTC