[teampractices] "Roadmap" project in Phabricator

[James Forrester]

On 24 February 2015 at 02:32, Andre Klapper <aklapper at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> On Thu, 2015-02-19 at 23:47 -0800, Erik Moeller wrote:
> > I propose a "Roadmap" project in Phabricator. Tasks in this project
> > would be typically epics with rough anticipated calendar-level
> > delivery dates and clear, understandable task descriptions.
>
> > Tasks would be arranged on a Phabricator workboard like so:
>
> > February 2015: Features
> > February 2015: Platform
> > February 2015: Apps
>
> If tasks are really "typically epics", there's an existing project with
> an unused workboard: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/epic/
>
> Is there a good enough reason to not use that workboard (plus keeping
> epics that are way too "epic" in the Backlog column)?
>
> How many Roadmap items will *not* be epics?
>
> Having another project "Roadmap" with >50% of its tasks being already
> part of the "Epic" project sounds like potential duplication.
> Plus keeping track of epics might be one of Wikimedia's problems and I
> don't think that currently anyone regularly looks at the list of open
> "Epic" tasks anyway. I'm happy to be proven wrong.
>

​I agree that the "Epic" project adds no or little value right now, and
re-purposing it to be a roadmap could work.

However, in this thread Erik's pointed out that a potentially very large
number of potential (unscheduled) roadmap items, epics or not, will be
missing from this view of the overall Wikimedia project management system.
Unless we're going to have a ghetto of "unscheduled ideas"?

J.
-- 
James D. Forrester
Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.

jforrester at wikimedia.org | @jdforrester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20150224/7077e335/attachment.html>