+1 to Dan
On Monday, April 27, 2015, Dan Andreescu <dandreescu(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
Sounds to me like the nuance we were trying to go for
confusion. This is unintended and my opinion is that we should remove
maybe-analytics and just tell everyone to use blocked-on-analytics as
liberally as they wish.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:45 AM, Andre Klapper
> On Fri, 2015-04-17 at 18:15 -0700, Grace Gellerman wrote:
> > The project is intended for Analytics customers to alert Analytics of
> > work in their products that they think might intersect with ours. It's
> > a way of giving Analytics an early heads-up so that Analytics can
> > either say,"Thanks for the early warning!" or "Thanks, but this
> > not touch Analytics."
> > We can remind participants at Scrum-of-Scrums that they can use this
> > project.
> Isn't that pretty much what
> Both projects should receive urgent triage anyway (and hence a decision
> whether a task is actually Analytics territory or not), but I see zero
> folks listed under "Watchers"  on either project pages?
> > So for now, please do not archive it. Thanks!
> I would like to archive that project soon, given my comment above.
> Furthermore, that project has been entirely unused (maybe because nobody
> has ever heard of that project...).
> If I imagined every project to have a corresponding maybe-project, we'd
> just create unneeded abstraction layers.
> Newly created tasks should receive triage. One triage steps is defining
> if the task is associated to the right project(s). No "maybe" needed.
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
Analytics mailing list