>From the people that have modified this page in the past, what are your thoughts? Good for me to pull the rest into JIRA and we redirect from the wiki? +joey lynch +scott andreas +sumanth pasupuleti +marcus eriksson +romain hardouin
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 8:57 AM Joshua McKenzie <jmcken...@apache.org> wrote: > what we really need is >> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can >> help resource from your side? > > Not a ton, but I think enough yes. > > (Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!) > > Happy to help. > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 2:46 PM Nate McCall <zznat...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > <snip> >> > My .02: I think it'd improve our ability to collaborate and lower >> friction >> > to testing if we could do so on JIRA instead of the cwiki. *I suspect >> *the >> > edit access restrictions there plus general UX friction (difficult to >> have >> > collab discussion, comment chains, links to things, etc) make the >> confluent >> > wiki a worse tool for this job than JIRA. Plus if we do it in JIRA we >> can >> > track the outstanding scope in the single board and it's far easier to >> > visualize everything in one place so we can all know where attention and >> > resources need to be directed to best move the needle on things. >> > >> > But that's just my opinion. What does everyone else think? Like the JIRA >> > route? Hate it? No opinion? >> > >> > If we do decide we want to go the epic / JIRA route, I'd be happy to >> > migrate the rest of the information in there for things that haven't >> been >> > completed yet on the wiki (ticket creation, assignee/reviewer chains, >> links >> > to epic). >> > >> > So what does everyone think? >> > >> >> I think this is a good idea. Having the resources available to keep the >> various bits twiddled correctly on existing and new issues has always been >> the hard part for us. So regardless of the path, what we really need is >> some dedicated PM time going forward. Is that something you think you can >> help resource from your side? >> >> (Also, thanks for all the efforts exploring this either way!!) >> >
