As you recall from the meeting, there are two points here:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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>
|
