Ian Clarke writes: > Well, one important component of the allocation process is to start with an > even > allocation of points between all tasks,
Did I overlook that in the description? > As cost-metric I would suggest using full-time person-weeks. > > The problem is that some things we could allocate resources to might be, say, > paying $600 for 99designs to come up with a new web design (just an > example). Even if we buy things, we still need time to integrate them. And as an example why I think that money isn’t useful here: $600 sound like much, but when we’re thinking about paying people, that’s less than half a person-week. This is very much not an obvious correlation, though. Also the natural units are much too small: When thinking in money, it’s so seducing to go into $1 steps that you felt the need to include the notion that we should not go in small increments. Also we can express money in person-weeks: One person-week is ~$1250. So this is just as good a measure of everything as money. > However, I > don't agree that if a task is less than a week's work that we should > automatically do it, we might have $25k worth of tasks like that! This is not what I said: I said that if the task is less than a week of work, it’s too small to merit discussing it. Volunteer time is too valuable for that. > Part of the solution is to have a “catch-all” for small “technical > debt” tasks, Sure — not only for technical debt. > This wasn't just a description of the method, it was an argument in favor of > using the method, and some background on how I came up with the method. > A simple description of the method would be much shorter. Good :) We’ll need such a description before we can actually use the method. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein ohne es zu merken
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
