Rethinking UDS

[Matt Zimmerman]

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 08:30:00PM -0700, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 02:50:20PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > 2. UDS produces many more blueprints than we need for a cycle.  While some
> > of these represent an explicit decision not to pursue a project, most of
> > them are set aside simply because we can't fit them in.  We have the
> > capacity to implement over 100 blueprints per cycle, but we have *thousands*
> > of blueprints registered today.  We finished less than half of the
> > blueprints we registered for 10.04.  This means that we're spending a lot of
> > time at UDS talking about things which can't get done that cycle (and may
> > never get done).
> 
> I think part of the reason there are so many blueprints is that they've
> kind of been advertised as akin to a feature wishlist, so a lot of
> random junk that never got discussed at any UDS is in there, and mostly
> isn't appropriate to keep around.
> 
> If you think having too many "dead" blueprints registered is
> problematic, would you be open to the idea of doing some sort of
> bulk-expire on all the old ones that never got assigned / prioritized /
> targeted?  Just for the sake of de-crufting.

I'm much less concerned about accumulating "dead" blueprints than about the
work which went into creating them (which perhaps could have been spent on
other things).  However, it might be worth sweeping them to keep the list
manageable.

> Or if you think there may be good ideas not worth losing, perhaps just
> giving core-devs and motu's broader permissions for being able to close
> and prioritize unassigned blueprints would enable us to collectively
> triage the blueprints back to sanity.

This is complicated by
https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu-community/+bug/585807

-- 
 - mdz