Hi Philip (H), Phil (J), all,
Phil Howards wrote:
Bernard, All,
An initial draft of a wiki page prototype for new ideas is here:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/Whiteboards/IdeaWorkflow
Thanks for this structured approach for a general template.
And thanks to Christoph for the template's structure ;-)
It's just the DocumentBackground page stripped of its content. I'm in
two minds about whether it is better to comment out everything from
Specification onwards, leaving just Summary and Discussion visible
initially. But that's something to do once we've finished deciding on
the page.
I would leave them visible, but add something like "can be specified later"
to the other sections.
This way people know they can work on these parts if they want to, but it's
no problem to leave them empty at the beginning.
Things I like from the DocumentBackground page:
. Progresses from idea to implementation
. Discussion section near the top means interested parties can read
the relevant threads and handles the transition of an idea from
discussion list to whiteboard.
. Implementation history near the bottom lets the page tell the story
of where an idea has got to, if it is to be implemented in stages, for
example.
. Open items gives space for leftover items so they don't slip through the net.
Perhaps links to mockups (much of the whiteboard use in the initial
stages) would go in Discussion.
If Discussion includes all the different alternatives and approaches I would
like to move it down below Specification.
A 1-liner in Specification like "Task still in discussion" would probably not
retract interest from Discussion, but would allow to define the specification
finally decided on to become more prominent in the end (when discussion
is just a part of it's history).
Using whiteboard wikis for the process is great, because its
asynchronous nature permits sporadic development in the same way
wikipedia does. Also the specification can be fleshed out as it is
developed in the discussions, ready for implementation. It hink the
concept in my mind is coalescence - from an idea of a change to the
details of its implementation.
The workflow should be changed and refined to suit the process. If
longer-standing members will consistently mark up a whiteboard as it
progresses, we may be able to leave just the Summary and Discussion
sections on the workflow template, and let people reuse the latest
whiteboard that they like, to avoid having one more thing to keep up
to date, or being too prescriptive.
I start to think of the main whiteboad page more and more as a table:
with a field showing the status of all the entries.
If a entry has matured and finalized by the developers they should be
moved to a "implemented specifications" page...
Best regards
Bernhard
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
- [libreoffice-design] Re: [libreoffice-design] Formalized team work structures · Bernhard Dippold
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.