[sugar] 0.84/9.1 planning.

[Samuel Klein]

Does it make sense to have an afternoon or a full day about long-term
plans and their implications for immediate priorities and tests?

Try to capture topics that could be specific agenda items with their
own session or conversation -- by creating a separate thread about it
on the list, a separate wiki page about it, or by adding a session to
the draft agenda.   (thread convergence : annotation v. creation)

http://wiki.laptop.org/go/9.1#Agenda
SJ

Ed wrote:
>  I just want to acknowledge that the "*some* piece we can do now"
> might not produce anything shippable in a 9.1 timeframe.

I'd like to see [in future cycles] a more explicit option to include
codepaths that are turned off (to make testing easier), or to suggest
for a testing sprint something that is unlikely to be 'ready to ship'
but does need the extra testing rigor for eventual completeness.


On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Ed McNierney <ed at laptop.org> wrote:
> We need to figure out how to start work that takes more than 5 - 6 months
> NOW.  I'm concerned that if we start the 9.2 planning meeting "after 9.1",
> we will (yet again) discover that there's no time to do anything that takes
> more than about 5 months.  We need to break that cycle and try to figure out
> how to get the *most important* work started right away, whether that work
> is deliverable in a 9.1 timeframe, a 9.2 timeframe, or longer.
>
>> In the past we have divided tasks into "next release" and "future
>> release" where the "future" really means "never" because we don't do
>> *any* of the work in the "next release" timeframe.  That needs to
>> stop.  *Everything* we want in a "future release" must have *some*
>> piece we can do now, so that we continue to make progress on our
>> long-term goals.
>
> Yes, I very much agree with this sentiment, so I don't think we disagree
> much on the overall goals but need to reach a bit more consensus on the
> implementation details.  I just want to acknowledge that the "*some* piece
> we can do now" might not produce anything shippable in a 9.1 timeframe.  Or
> perhaps it's something shippable but not usable, so we do ship something in
> 9.1 that's really only a partial implementation so not many users need to
> know or care about it.  I'm OK with considering any approach that lets us
> start that kind of work soon.
>
>    - Ed
>
>
>