Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: REMINDER: Project management tools review: Help shorten the list of candidates

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… 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