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

[Andre Klapper]

Heja,

Thanks to everybody who has already provided input and feedback on our
Project management tools options, so the upcoming RFC can focus on
candidates that we really want to further investigate.

If you have not taken a look or commented on the candidates: 
Please take a few minutes to review the options and give your opinion!
Engage in the discussion and make sure your voice is heard:

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Talk:Project_management_tools/Review/Options

This is crucial in order to hopefully finding broad consensus and wide
acceptance across teams at the very end of this evaluation.

I'd especially like to encourage teams which have not provided input
yet. Furthermore, while the focus is clearly on software development,
commenting is not restricted to _development_ teams - Input from any
teams in the Wikimedia sphere who use workflow or ticket systems can be
helpful.


Again, thank you for your help!

Guillaume and Andre


On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 09:35 +0100, Guillaume Paumier wrote:
> 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
> 

-- 
Andre Klapper | Wikimedia Bugwrangler
http://blogs.gnome.org/aklapper/