Re: [atomic-devel] Roadmap / tracking for Project Atomic top level

[SGhosh <sghosh redhat com>]

On 12/04/2014 04:58 PM, Matt Micene wrote:

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb redhat com> wrote:

On 12/04/2014 10:27 AM, Matt Micene wrote:
What would be the best way, do you think? How hard will it be to
transition if we start using this method and go to something else later?

Quick and good enough is fine with me, as long as it doesn't leave a lot
on the table or make scaling the project overly difficult as we grow.

Sure, Joe, call me out ;-),  I really don't know what the best way is.  Trello and the Kanban board things seem more focused on status not capture and discussion.  I've looked at a few "roadmap" tools, which seem to be just Gantt chart tools that have different output.  The other way would be an official Bugzilla / Trac / JIRA or something and do it all in tickets, which seems to have a better initial workflow but means another tool, logins, etc.  Everything seems to have some missing focus or additional overhead that makes me not want to bring it up as a starting point...  Hence the good not perfect.

I found a few examples of other projects doing similar things on Github, e.g. Docker, Node.js Advisory Board.  Check out the labels and milestones on their issue page.  They have the "advantage" that this is a single, eponymous project and codebase so they don't need a separate section for 'governance'.

https://github.com/docker/docker/issues

Unless we completely abandon Github, the data would remain, the overall process should be tool agnostic, so I don't think we'd leave anything behind, but scale could always be an issue.

Would something like a PEP be useful? Openshift has leveraged successfully as part of the major design discussion artifacts.

eg: https://github.com/openshift/openshift-pep

Can we send github issues to atomic-devel, I wonder, the way we send
Trac discussions to cloud lists fedoraproject org?

Hmm, IFTTT or Zapier?  Maybe add a stub user to the Org that watches issues?  Not savvy enough with issues to really know our options here.

 

Separately, I think it's time we start considering more formal
governance. My bias is towards something like an Apache Project
Management Committee (PMC) where the general trend is towards consensus
and people can be added as they show involvement without a specific
number of board members or whatnot. Perhaps I should flesh that out a
bit more and send a separate note.

+1 

Matt M (nzwulfin)