On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:24 PM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 13:10, Leigh Griffin <lgrif...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:29 AM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > >> > >> So I was also waiting for those open discussions about the > >> requirements gathered. > > > > We had several threads on them from the Fedora perspective on both devel > and council lists. > > Yet again: threads on requirements gathering, not on the merits of the > final User Story list. A merits based discussion whereby multiple stakeholders have a totally different view and use case for a Forge is impossible to facilitate. What is valuable to you and your use case might not be valuable to other users and vice versa. I'm happy to have a conversation about any individual requirements but the reality is any that made the list are valid requirements from a stakeholder perspective and it's not up to me or anyone to challenge that assertion. > That's what several of us were expecting. I > don't think it's too hard too understand. You can say "no, that wasn't > part of the process", but then, sorry, you didn't communicate that > effectively. > > > I'm sorry this is disappointing but even reading the analysis by Neal it > is looking at the merit of the requirement and not looking at the fact that > it is valuable to somebody. Each stakeholder group had their own means to > discuss and debate the merits and had them rolled into CPE who in turn > analysed them and published the full story list. > > Two things are obvious here: 1) not all the requirements can be met > (you already stated this), and 2) not all requirements have the same > importance. So yes, of course Neal is looking at the merit of every > single requirement, and that's your job too. What if I say that is > valuable to me that the GitHub logo is on top of the interface? Is > that something that should be taken into account just because it's > valuable to somebody? > If that came up as a UI requirement then yes we would have taken it on board, would have documented it and would have presented it in the final list of unique user stories we gathered. Would it be weighed equally with a more core functional requirement? The answer is of course no but we would have respected that request. The Fedora specific requirements (as I am on the Fedora lists here) had very few unique needs such that both Gitlab and Pagure would have satisfied their desire. Either Forge would have been satisfied the requirements we received and we ultimately opted for Gitlab based on a more holistic view of the stakeholder needs. > Iñaki > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Leigh Griffin Engineering Manager Red Hat Waterford <https://www.redhat.com/> Communications House Cork Road, Waterford City lgrif...@redhat.com M: +353877545162 IM: lgriffin @redhatjobs <https://twitter.com/redhatjobs> redhatjobs <https://www.facebook.com/redhatjobs> @redhatjobs <https://instagram.com/redhatjobs> <https://red.ht/sig>
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
