Rethinking UDS

Rick Spencer rick.spencer at canonical.com
Fri May 28 19:23:40 BST 2010


On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 12:38 +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> 
> Perhaps even more importantly, I think we should rather aim UDS the
> other way: At least personally I find large gatherings like UDS a lot
> more productive and enjoyable for talking about ideas, rough
> designs, and strategy planning than trying to discuss implementation
> details in a large group. IME a lot of participants have valuable
> input in the former, but once it comes to implementation details then
> one of two things usually happen: (1) the discussion gets reduced
> between two or three experts, and most other people get bored, or (2)
> too many people are discussing different things or in different
> directions, which in the end produces no outcome at all.
I guess this is good feedback for me as a track lead.

As a track lead, it's important to me that there is a Plan of Record for
each area that is committed to. It is not important to me that detailed
implementation decisions are made. It is important that those decisions
are made in a timely manner after UDS, to ensure that there is minimum
turn around time between the plan being decided and work started. So
perhaps I push a bit too hard for the detailed discussion.

To compensate, I could put more structure in place regarding what we do
with the outputs of UDS, and when we do those things. For example, if
work items and specs are expected to be complete n days after UDS, this
would provide the confidence that the PORs will be turned into
actionable work.

I also think that I/we could do more work *before* UDS ensuring that we
are gathering input on the agenda, and that we are able to collect and
use that input. It's great that we are transparent, but I think we could
do a better job with the kind of discussions you would like to have if
folks have already thought through them and are bringing well structured
discussion.

Cheers, Rick






More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list