Project Workflows and Decision Making

[Chris Saad]

I would love feedback on this please
http://wiki.dataportability.org/display/dpmain/Workflow

[Robyn Tippins]

In the first section:

"Small-scale/simple decisions can be made on the spot in chat/meetups by the Project Leader OR Project Manager (one in each timezone maybe?) but should also be documented on the Discussion threads of that Project"

I get who the Leader is, but who is the Manager?

On another note, will 'official' projects we displayed somewhere besides the wiki?

Very clear document.  Look forward to implementing this. 

--
Robyn Tippins
408-718-0886
PM, Developer Tools Yahoo! Platforms
Sleepyblogger.com | Gamingandtech.com

[J. Trent Adams]

Chris -

It's good to see movement on the .Projects concept, this seems to
provide a great framework for solidifying some of the gedanken work
into something actionable.

I know we're looking for a super light process (just enough to keep
things flowing), but it might be worth breezing through the IETF [1]
"Request for Comments" (RFC) documents [2]. Specifically, check out
the process doc "RFC 2026" [3].

I'm by no means suggesting we adopt this process, but it does have
some nuggets of goodness. For example, I like the distinction between
the RFC document classes:

RFC = Request for Comments, docs proposing ideas and asking for
feedback.
BCP = Best Current Practices, descriptions of exemplar
implementations.
STD = Standards, documents that define commonly agreed upon standards.

I know there are nuances here I'm kinda' glossing over (eg. various
tracks, subclassifications, etc.), but being aware of this existing
process should help us guide our own efforts.

I did go ahead and move the summary section from the bottom to the top
of the wiki page [4]. Basically, it took me a couple reads to grok
the meaning and thought leading with the simplified flow, followed by
the details helped.

Cheers,
Trent

[1] http://www.ietf.org/
[2] http://rfc.net/rfc-index.html
[3] http://rfc.net/rfc2026.html

[Elias Bizannes]

looks good.

Some minor tweaks - will give more feedback this weekend.

[J. Trent Adams]

Steering Folk -

Based on the call yesterday [1], it seems like the proposed workflow
[2] is reasonable enough to keep the Labs, Hacks, and other similar
projects moving ahead for now. It does sound like the consensus of
the group on the call, though, was we need to more clearly define
criteria for moving into "DataPortability Official" status. The
concept here was that "official-ness" is valuable, and should be
protected until we're ready for it to be meaningful. There was no
consensus, however, on the right approach to take to get there.

In the meantime, it was (I believe) universally agreed that we should
at least add some sort of moniker to all proposed projects denoting
them as "beta | experimental | drafts" for now. For the short term,
this would help clarify for people that projects (proposed and worked
on by anyone with time/interest in doing so) shouldn't be taken as
anything "official | blessed | approved | standardized" by the
DataPortability Project as a whole.

To that end, I propose we take the following steps:

1. Clearly define what it means to be a project
in this phase, and that the process for the
"graduation to official status" is being proposed
as a future process.

2. Post this as a Wiki page with a header
indicating the date by which a hearing
call will be held to discuss (open to all)
and voted on by those in attendance.

3. Post a note to all lists for discussion,
along with a link to the wiki page for
refinement.

4. Hold the call, and if there is no major
dissent, poll the attendees for their
support / rejection.

5. If the concept passes, then everyone
should be able to keep moving forward
with their projects and ideas unfettered,
knowing that they need to clearly
denote the fact that it is in process of
becoming official (whatever that will
eventually mean), but isn't yet.

Basically, if we believe that not all projects should be "official"
until they've "graduated" in some way, this seems like a good first
step... at least buying us some time to figure out the subsequent
steps. This should work as long as the call date (ie. the final up/
down vote) is set far enough in advance (eg. two weeks?) for a comment
period (and letting people clear their schedules for the call - if
they care).

Any comments or suggestions?

- Trent


[1] http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/1woR
[2] http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/SQoR

[bngu]

Works for me.

[Brett McDowell]

I agree with this.  But note, to "graduate" there will need to be an official "decision" by some group and that gets us back to governance (quorum, voting, etc.).  I think Elias, Jacob, and I have a solid proposal on the table for how to handle that.  So can we move that forward in parallel with this workflow proposal?

Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance | vCard | Calendar

[J. Trent Adams]

Brett -

I agree... the proposal you guys worked up is excellent and I'd like
to see it (or something close) go into effect soon after this "baby
step".

I believe the concern on the call was that we didn't want to
discourage projects/labs/experiments from being developed while we
debated the uber model (as it's likely to take a few cycles to bring
it home).

Cheers,
Trent

On Apr 2, 4:54 pm, "Brett McDowell" <brettmcdow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with this. But note, to "graduate" there will need to be an
> official "decision" by some group and that gets us back to governance
> (quorum, voting, etc.). I think Elias, Jacob, and I have a solid proposal
> on the table for how to handle that. So can we move that forward in
> parallel with this workflow proposal?
>

> Brett McDowell | Liberty Alliance <http://www.projectliberty.org> |
> vCard<http://www.ictprojects.com/Brett_McDowell_LAP.vcf>|
> Calendar<http://www.google.com/calendar/hosted/ictprojects.com/embed?src=brett...>
>

[Elias Bizannes]

Hi everyone,

I've nominated myself in other threads, on the call, and privately
with Chris after I had a catch up on what we think are key strategetic
priorities for us. This is to mean I am going to oversee that we
finalise the governance discussion + the workflow proposed by Chris
above. My goal is that by the end of April, we will discuss, have it
agreed on, and ratified. This is top priority for not just steering
but the entire DataPortability Project, as it ultimately determines
how we operate.

As such, I propose a special taskforce that I will chair and will be
open to all participants in DataPortability to participate. This
taskforce will meet and discuss in their own time, and to be
considered part of the group I will require you nominate yourself.
Doing this is actually also a real world experiment (the other being
the logo competition team) when we try to apply the discussions on
governance + workflow, and so our experience doing this will be
invaluable as it will give us real insight into what we are trying to
model.

Please add your names here: http://wiki.dataportability.org/x/EgsR

Over the weekend, I will be preparing an agenda going forward and
discussion points for our first teleconference for Tuesday US &
Europe / Wednesday Australia time. Based on attendees, I will
determine what time we schedule the call so that we can cater for the
timezones.

By all means, continue the discussion in these threads, and I will
mine them to prepare an agenda - utimately, I just want to facilitate
these discussions so we can take it to the next level.