Rethinking UDS

[Oliver Grawert]

hi,
Am Freitag, den 28.05.2010, 14:39 -0500 schrieb Robbie Williamson:
> On Thu, 2010-05-27 at 14:50 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> [snip] 
> > == Proposals ==
> > 
> > A. Concentrate on the projects we can complete in the upcoming cycle.  If we
> > aren't going to have time to implement something until the next cycle, the
> > blueprint can usually be deferred to the next cycle as well.  By producing
> > only moderately more blueprints than we need, we can reduce the complexity
> > of the event, avoid waste, prepare better, and put most of our energy into
> > the blueprints we intend to use in the near future.
> Sometimes the simple answer is the best...cap the number of blueprints
> that can be accepted into to a given release.  If we estimate capacity
> to be 100 blueprints per cycle, then set the cap at 120 to also allow
> for discussion of things we might do, in case we decide not to do
> something else.
thats a great idea, but instead of capping the overall amount it should
be capped on a per-track/team base (i.e. each team/track can do 3-5
ad-hoc blueprints).

ciao
	oli
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20100529/577ea92e/attachment.pgp