Thread: Roadmaps 'n all that
[ hijacking this thread over to where the developers hang out ]
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's pointless to suppose that individual developers would really be
>> answerable to any project-wide management, since that's not who they're
>> paid by. So I tend to think that a project roadmap would be more of an
>> exercise in wishful thinking than a useful management tool. OTOH it
>> *could* be useful, if there are any developers out there wondering what
>> they should work on next. Are there any ... and would they listen to a
>> roadmap if they had one, rather than scratching their own itches?
> I would certainly listen to a roadmap if it talked to me ...
Well, this question keeps coming up, and we keep arguing about it, and
we still have no data to say whether it would work well for *this*
project. Maybe it's time to take the bull by the horns.
I propose a modest experiment: for the 8.3 development cycle, let's try
to agree (in the next month or so) on a roadmap of what major features
should be in 8.3 and who will make each one happen. A year from now,
we will know whether this is a great thing we should continue, or we
should stick to our traditional laissez-faire style of project
management. I figure that even if it really sucks, it wouldn't kill us
to try it for one release cycle --- at the very worst, we'd make up lost
time in future by no longer needing to waste bandwidth arguing about it.
regards, tom lane
On Aug 31, 2006, at 8:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > [ hijacking this thread over to where the developers hang out ] > > Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> It's pointless to suppose that individual developers would really be >>> answerable to any project-wide management, since that's not who >>> they're >>> paid by. So I tend to think that a project roadmap would be more >>> of an >>> exercise in wishful thinking than a useful management tool. OTOH it >>> *could* be useful, if there are any developers out there >>> wondering what >>> they should work on next. Are there any ... and would they >>> listen to a >>> roadmap if they had one, rather than scratching their own itches? > >> I would certainly listen to a roadmap if it talked to me ... > > Well, this question keeps coming up, and we keep arguing about it, and > we still have no data to say whether it would work well for *this* > project. Maybe it's time to take the bull by the horns. > > I propose a modest experiment: for the 8.3 development cycle, let's > try > to agree (in the next month or so) on a roadmap of what major features > should be in 8.3 and who will make each one happen. A year from now, > we will know whether this is a great thing we should continue, or we > should stick to our traditional laissez-faire style of project > management. I figure that even if it really sucks, it wouldn't > kill us > to try it for one release cycle --- at the very worst, we'd make up > lost > time in future by no longer needing to waste bandwidth arguing > about it. Would this be a core postgresql code roadmap or something a bit broader (contrib, custom types, GUI-ish stuff, utilities and what have you)? Cheers, Steve
>> we will know whether this is a great thing we should continue, or we >> should stick to our traditional laissez-faire style of project >> management. I figure that even if it really sucks, it wouldn't kill us >> to try it for one release cycle --- at the very worst, we'd make up lost >> time in future by no longer needing to waste bandwidth arguing about it. > > Would this be a core postgresql code roadmap or something a bit > broader (contrib, custom types, GUI-ish stuff, utilities and what > have you)? I think that we could at this time only expect things that would be submitted for core inclusion. The less cats to herd the better :) Joshua D. Drake > > Cheers, > Steve > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Tom, > I propose a modest experiment: for the 8.3 development cycle, let's try > to agree (in the next month or so) on a roadmap of what major features > should be in 8.3 and who will make each one happen. Well, I think the what is more important that the who -- we can switch "whos" if that's what it takes to make the "what" happen. Likely, we will have to. > A year from now, > we will know whether this is a great thing we should continue, or we > should stick to our traditional laissez-faire style of project > management. I figure that even if it really sucks, it wouldn't kill us > to try it for one release cycle --- at the very worst, we'd make up lost > time in future by no longer needing to waste bandwidth arguing about it. Great. I think we have some volunteers to put a tool online to track volunteers, specifications and status. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco
Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
>> I propose a modest experiment: for the 8.3 development cycle, let's try
>> to agree (in the next month or so) on a roadmap of what major features
>> should be in 8.3 and who will make each one happen.
> Well, I think the what is more important that the who -- we can switch
> "whos" if that's what it takes to make the "what" happen. Likely, we
> will have to.
No doubt --- but if there's not someone specific who's agreed to take on
each item on the roadmap, then what is it but pie-in-the-sky wishing?
I'm entirely comfortable with the idea that we put some things on the
roadmap that end up not being done when 8.3 release rolls around.
We've been disappointed that way a few times before ;-) ... we won't
be worse off if it happens again, and I'd rather aim high than low.
I think the important point to try for in this iteration is that someone
signs up for each thing the community thinks is important to get done,
and that we all believe no one has taken on anything they can't credibly
get done.
regards, tom lane
Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> we will know whether this is a great thing we should continue, or we >>> should stick to our traditional laissez-faire style of project >>> management. I figure that even if it really sucks, it wouldn't kill us >>> to try it for one release cycle --- at the very worst, we'd make up lost >>> time in future by no longer needing to waste bandwidth arguing about it. >> >> Would this be a core postgresql code roadmap or something a bit >> broader (contrib, custom types, GUI-ish stuff, utilities and what >> have you)? > > I think that we could at this time only expect things that would be > submitted for core inclusion. The less cats to herd the better :) yeah I would agree that it makes sense to do that for core postgresql code only for now - most of the others stuff is not even directly tied to the 8.3 development cycle either(GUIs will have to support more than a single release probably as would maybe special custom types or such). Stefan