[teampractices] Project management tools review: Help shorten the list of candidates

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hi all,

Thanks again for providing so much input during the consultation
period ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Project_management_tools/Review
). It's been extremely useful to understand your respective needs and
workflows.

We've summarized all this input into consolidated requirements. The
goal was to group similar needs to make it easier to identify the
features we need across teams and individuals:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project_management_tools/Review/Requirements

Some requirements are conflicting with each other and will require
further discussion later, but overall we're pretty much in agreement
regarding what we want (even if that's a five-legged unicorn).

We've been diligent in including everything that was provided during
the consultation. Nonetheless, please take a look at the list of
requirements if you have a moment, to make sure we haven't missed
anything important.

We've also assembled a list of options, i.e. the possible outcomes of
this review process. The options go from keeping the status quo to
changing a single tool, to consolidating most tools into one. It's
still very much a draft and nothing's final. If we've missed anything
in that table, please be bold and edit it:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project_management_tools/Review/Options

We've tried to keep the list inclusive, but now we'd like to shorten
the list of options, so that the upcoming RFC can focus on the options
that actually have a shot.

If you're interested in helping with this, please take a look at the
list of options and discuss them on the talk page:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Project_management_tools/Review/Options#Discuss_options

Basically, we want to move items from the "Options under
consideration" section to the "Unlikely options" one. Ideally, we
should keep no more than 2 or 3 candidates, to make the RFC easier.

If you think an option is unavoidable (e.g. "We absolutely must
discuss replacing Trello by Pivotal Tracker"), then say so on the talk
page in the relevant section. Conversely, if you think there's no way
we're using iceScrum, leave a comment on the talk page. We'll assess
consensus collaboratively and hopefully get rid of unlikely options.

This is a collaborative process: we need your help so others don't
make decisions on your behalf. Please take a few minutes to review the
options and give your opinion. It's Notavote; think of it as a sane
version of RfD ("you must be new around here?").

Let us know if you have any questions and we'll do our best to answer :)

Andre and Guillaume

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
Technical Communications Manager — Wikimedia Foundation