Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [] Minutes from theAugust meetingposted for your review

As you recall from the meeting, there are two points here:
  1. Project X is welcome to release at the same time as project Y, with or without telling Y that they (X) are doing so. The Planning Council and the EMO are not controlling or restricting this in any way.
  2. There are two reasons to join the train: the PR value and the Bug-fix value.  The PR value is obvious. The Bug-fix value is that the projects on the train have agreed to help each other meet the train deadlines.  Being "on the train" means that because you are helping, you get priority help in return.
  3. We concluded that it will take a significant effort to make this work. We don't want to hold up all the projects for one tardy project, thus if project X falls behind, we will cut our losses by cutting that project from the train.
  4. This same reasons (significant work) is the reason we are limiting the train to these projects in year one.  In future years we may/could expand it to a larger number of projects - once we figure out how it works.
<tyler2>This one still eludes me.  I understand the reasons for aligning builds/milestones.  What I don’t get are comments like “participation is limited,” “not everyone will be able to join,” and “if not synchronized by M5 it’s off the train.”  What will be different for a project if (a) they “decline” to get on the train, but irregardless coordinate builds/milestones with 3.2 vs. (b) if a project accepts to join the train and does the same thing?  Or, perhaps appropriately, if a project falls behinds, but later catches up, why are they “off the train for the year”?  If the train is just a series of coordinated milestones, I don’t understand the restrictions to joining and rejoining.</tyler2>

Back to the top