From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25075 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2007 23:34:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 25068 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2007 23:34:01 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com (HELO rgminet01.oracle.com) (148.87.113.118) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:33:47 +0000 Received: from rgmsgw01.us.oracle.com (rgmsgw01.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.51]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id l1KNXcvE027834; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:33:38 -0700 Received: from ca-server1.us.oracle.com (ca-server1.us.oracle.com [139.185.48.5]) by rgmsgw01.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id l1KNXZOI017470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:33:36 -0700 Received: from kvanhees by ca-server1.us.oracle.com with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HJeUJ-0003ys-HC; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:33:35 -0800 Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:34:00 -0000 From: Kris Van Hees To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Frysk List Subject: Re: user discussion & meeting and more meetings Message-ID: <20070220233335.GB5496@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> References: <45D34165.7090300@redhat.com> <1171998220.14902.25.camel@multics.rdu.redhat.com> <45DB6800.7020503@oracle.com> <45DB7ACD.6050001@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45DB7ACD.6050001@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q1/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 To chime in on this a bit... One of the difficult points with frysk development (from my side) right now is that there is very limited visibility into the progress of frysk aside from the UI. These is also not really information I have been able to find on the side of project management, in terms of what is being worked on, what the milestones are, where priorities ought to be, etc... Truly, basic project management and knowing who is doing what. It's kind of important to be able to share that information, and also to be able to participate in the decisions that lead up to it. Kris On Tue, Feb 20, 2007 at 05:48:45PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Can you be more specific as to why you consider weekly planning meetings > to be necessary, or more necessary than giving developers an opportunity > to get direct feed back on their work. > > The discussion has really focused so far more on UI with: > > - making requested changes in response to a meeting is >1 week work; > weekly review of a specific component isn't reasonable > - people max out of a topics discussion (including UI review) at about > 30-60 minutes; so limit the amount of material handled is important > - UI review has very positive effects - developers get to experience > first hand users succeeding or struggling with what they have implemented > > To me this suggests, w.r.t. UI, short sharp weekly reviews focued on a > single topic may work better: > > - possible to run two or more items in parallel - one updated each week > - avoids any delays in getting something onto the agenda > - again gives developers that direct positive feedback that leads to > better code > > Perhaps the time can be split evenly? > > Andrew