From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30338 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2007 22:49:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 30329 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2007 22:49:03 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:48:58 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1KMmrJF012690; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:48:53 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1KMmrvp009725; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:48:53 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l1KMmqxP031784; Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:48:53 -0500 Message-ID: <45DB7ACD.6050001@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 22:49:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Elena Zannoni CC: Stan Cox , Frysk List Subject: Re: user discussion & meeting and more meetings References: <45D34165.7090300@redhat.com> <1171998220.14902.25.camel@multics.rdu.redhat.com> <45DB6800.7020503@oracle.com> In-Reply-To: <45DB6800.7020503@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00147.txt.bz2 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 Elena Zannoni wrote: > Stan Cox wrote: >> On Wed, 2007-02-14 at 12:05 -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: >> >>> -> Cycle the Wednesday meeting so that it alternates between user / >>> technical / co-op focused >> >> I vote for cycling the meetings, with week 1 for >> planning/administration/idea exchange and week 2 for technical >> discussion. >> >> >> >> > > A project management meeting every 2 weeks is not going to cut it > unfortunately, > given the scope and the size of the project it needs to be done every > week. > Doing UI every 2 weeks is reasonable. >