Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove program modules #28

Open
dufresnedavid opened this issue Jan 8, 2016 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
8 participants
@dufresnedavid
Copy link

commented Jan 8, 2016

program modules implement result-based management. The problem here is that this set of modules was developped for a specific company. It is very hard to understand how it works and the code is not reusable.

I do not see how these modules benefit from being published in OCA. No one except Savoir-faire Linux contributes to it and it is difficult to explain the choices we make in the pull requests.

I suggest that we remove completely this project from OCA. First, I would like to know if it is used by someone other than Savoir-faire Linux.

@elicoidal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Jan 9, 2016

👍

@dreispt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 30, 2016

I must say I never understood what is the purpose for this repo. So 👍

@dreispt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 30, 2016

@dufresnedavid Maybe this is best discussed in the Contributors ML.

@dufresnedavid

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented Jan 30, 2016

@dreispt I prefer having an issue to keep the trace of the arguments. Perhaps I should also mail to the contributor ML to make sure that concerned people get to know. Good point.

@max3903

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jan 30, 2016

👎

More info on result-based management:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results-based_management

👍 to move the repository under the Project and Services PSC.

@jgrandguillaume

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 1, 2016

Hi,

I must say I never had a look at those modules. But at a glance, it not a project & services generic modules, so I'm not in favor of adding them to this PSC.

But if really bind to a specific management strategy, why not renaming this repo to something like "vertical-result-based-mgmt" ?

My2cents,

Joël

@houssine78

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 1, 2016

As I understand it's not generic at all... So if it can't be reused why keep it in OCA?

From my point of view, those modules need refactoring to make them generic plus some explanations about how to use it. Otherwise they should go back on SFL repo

@bealdav

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Feb 1, 2016

So if it can't be reused why keep it in OCA?

👍

@rafaelbn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 1, 2016

Hi,

In this moment about moving this to Project and Services PSC I'm not agree 👎

I prefer to renaming this repo to something like "vertical-result-based-mgmt" 👍

Anywhy, we must ask to Savoir-faire Linux, are you going to migrate to v8/v9?

Is there any video or doc to know full use of all modules?

Thanks

@dreispt

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Feb 1, 2016

These features are not related to Project nor Program management, so OCA/project is not a suitable place for them - so I agree with @rafaelbn.

I find the current repo name misleading: "program" makes me think of Program management (as in managing a portfolio of projects), but it's something completely different.

I see no harm on keeping it, by I would prefer for it to have a different name - it's not a vertical, but taking from Rafael's suggestion OCA/result-based-mgmt could be a good name.
And it definitely would need a better README explaining what the repo is about.

@rafaelbn rafaelbn added the question label Feb 1, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.