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

Decision making for feature readiness #3688

Open
rowasc opened this issue Sep 4, 2019 · 8 comments

Comments

@rowasc
Copy link
Contributor

commented Sep 4, 2019

related to #3584

We are having a discussion about how we will decide that a feature is ok to work on.

@rowasc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

At some point it may also be open and encouraging to have a purely technical gate-keeping process for what constitutes a feature that could be in the roadmap (regardless of resources), i.e.:

  • The feature has solid technical and functional requirements
  • There is a sound study of the impact of the feature on the whole product and it is deemed acceptable
  • The user experience impact is well understood
  • The security impact is well understood
  • ... etc ...

In this way, there would be clear flags indicating which big chunks of work are fine to work on by true heroes ❤️ in their hard-earned free time. I know it's not exactly easy for such thing to happen ... but in general, I also think that laying this down explicitly is a hallmark of good technical practices.

This may be more suitable for #3584

Originally posted by @tuxpiper in #3645 (comment)

@rowasc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

If I understand correctly the points you listed are something that people would post at any point to justify the work they did is merge-able? or are you suggesting they post this ahead of time and have a discussion and then work on it if there's an agreement that it could be valuable?
(I don't want to jump and answer without being sure)

Originally posted by @rowasc in #3645 (comment)

@rowasc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

Ah wait, your list is actually about what we would use as technical gatekeeping basically?

Originally posted by @rowasc in #3645 (comment)

@rowasc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

Yes general technical gatekeeping, before anyone jumps into spending lots of time on something ... Any feature in the roadmap should have this technical and product-related groundwork detailed in the open , regardless of who proposed the feature or who is going to work on it.

Originally posted by @tuxpiper in #3645 (comment)

@rowasc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

That also means that the roadmap may not be 100% filtered by the resources of our organization, but more fundamentally by higher-level overarching technical criteria that we all can share.

Originally posted by @tuxpiper in #3645 (comment)

@rowasc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

this would fit a "request for comments" process, I think?

@rowasc rowasc changed the title Decision making process ideas for features. Decision making process ideas for features from a technical perspective Sep 4, 2019

@rowasc rowasc changed the title Decision making process ideas for features from a technical perspective Decision making for feature readiness ( from a dev perspective ) Sep 4, 2019

@rowasc rowasc changed the title Decision making for feature readiness ( from a dev perspective ) Decision making for feature readiness Sep 4, 2019

@rowasc

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Sep 4, 2019

A doc explaining this might benefit from "We understand everyone's background is different, and an initial request for a feature does not need to fit this entire criterion. It is enough to follow the basic criteria requirements in our Feature Request template to submit an idea for consideration.
After an idea is submitted, we will go through the following process to assess readiness:
[insert criteria ]
"

Note on language change suggested: I suggest we just call these readiness criteria (or a more standard term than this) to enable us and our community to have an inclusive and collaborative mindset as we discuss and run through this tasks.

(I only thought of this now TBH as I was re reading our interaction :) )

@tuxpiper

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Sep 5, 2019

Note on language change suggested: I suggest we just call these readiness criteria (or a more standard term than this) to enable us and our community to have an inclusive and collaborative mindset as we discuss and run through this tasks.

yep 👍 I'm a notorious gearhead but not everyone needs to be :) Plus probably only half of the criteria or less would be purely engineering concerns

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
2 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.