On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:27 AM Iñaki Ucar <iu...@fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > > > > On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 13:20, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:02 AM Leigh Griffin <lgrif...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> > > > >> I was really looking forward to reading what > > > >> Neal (as he's doing now) and others had to say about the > requirements > > > >> *before* any decision was taken, and how each tool covers them or > not, > > > >> and what kind of effort would require to cover it in the latter > case. > > > >> This is *very* disappointing. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I'm not bothering with the other aspects because there's no point. You > > > *already* decided. Why should I evaluate the merits of the > > > requirements when you've already decided they mattered enough to use > > > them for deciding for GitLab? > > > > I think he's arguing the opposite: that you shouldn't be evaluating > > the merits of the requirements published just because they are > > valuable to *someone*, which is crazy. > > That is nuts, no agile process I've ever heard of does it that way. > Part of the job of a product owner and project manager is to filter > these down, determine the merits of them, and determine the importance > of them after that. If you don't do that, you'll be bogged down in > useless requirements effectively forcing decisions for you. > > We done that as a Management team and with our Product Owner among other stakeholders. We did evaluate the merit of the requirements from a practicality perspective but we did not question or force our opinion on the validity of their asks, as we respect that it serves some demographic of their stakeholder group. I don't feel it's appropriate for one stakeholder group to criticise or attack the merits of a requirement from another group, that's the essence of my point. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > _______________________________________________ > 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
