Q to Mehdi: S.M.A.R.T. metrics

[martin f krafft]

Dear Mehdi,

in personal discussions and in your platform(s), you've been very
fond of the "S.M.A.R.T. way" aka. management by objectives.

Can you identify a few objectives you've seen through in your last
term, and specifically illustrate how you measured progress? What
about projects still on-going?

Thanks,

[Mehdi Dogguy]

Dear martin,

Post by martin f krafft
Dear Mehdi,
in personal discussions and in your platform(s), you've been very
fond of the "S.M.A.R.T. way" aka. management by objectives.

I do not remember myself talking about S.M.A.R.T criteria in personal
discussions to be honest :-) or if it ever happened, maybe it was
because it was mentioned in my platform and elsewhere. In fact,
S.M.A.R.T was used for Release Goals [1] and it has been also
mentioned by previous DPLs as well (although, I failed to find a
reference for that, for now).

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/ReleaseGoals/

But anyways... I am not particularly fond of S.M.A.R.T criteria but
I do recognize their value when it comes to defining goals and finding
ways to measure their progress. It is good a tool that helps us to
evaluate a goal by forcing us to think about five specific and simple
points.

Post by martin f krafft
Can you identify a few objectives you've seen through in your last
term, and specifically illustrate how you measured progress? What
about projects still on-going?

In general, I have followed the same methodology for all subjects
I've worked on during my DPL term: I have installed a kanboard [2]
instance on my server ; created a project (let's call it DPL) and
created tasks for every subject. Depending on the nature of subject,
I added sub-tasks sometimes. Comments were also used to track the
progress of the task.

[2] https://kanboard.net/

[martin f krafft]

Post by Mehdi Dogguy
I do not remember myself talking about S.M.A.R.T criteria in personal
discussions to be honest :-) or if it ever happened, maybe it was
because it was mentioned in my platform and elsewhere.

[
]

Post by Mehdi Dogguy
But anyways... I am not particularly fond of S.M.A.R.T criteria
[
]

How do you reconcile these two statements? Why do you want your
roadmap to consist of S.M.A.R.T. items?

Post by Mehdi Dogguy
In general, I have followed the same methodology for all subjects
I've worked on during my DPL term: I have installed a kanboard [2]
instance on my server ; created a project (let's call it DPL) and
created tasks for every subject. Depending on the nature of
subject, I added sub-tasks sometimes. Comments were also used to
track the progress of the task.

Would you see any value in having this publicly visible on official
project resources?

[Mehdi Dogguy]

Hi martin,

Post by martin f krafft

Post by Mehdi Dogguy
I do not remember myself talking about S.M.A.R.T criteria in personal
discussions to be honest :-) or if it ever happened, maybe it was
because it was mentioned in my platform and elsewhere.

[
]

Post by Mehdi Dogguy
But anyways... I am not particularly fond of S.M.A.R.T criteria
[
]

How do you reconcile these two statements? Why do you want your
roadmap to consist of S.M.A.R.T. items?

My statement is *not* "I do not like S.M.A.R.T". I explained in my
previous mail why it is relevant to use it to follow roadmap goals.
It helps us to measure progress of each goal.

Post by martin f krafft

Post by Mehdi Dogguy
In general, I have followed the same methodology for all subjects
I've worked on during my DPL term: I have installed a kanboard [2]
instance on my server ; created a project (let's call it DPL) and
created tasks for every subject. Depending on the nature of
subject, I added sub-tasks sometimes. Comments were also used to
track the progress of the task.

Would you see any value in having this publicly visible on official
project resources?

Of course. I can. But, I didn't find a way to leave some tasks in
"private" mode though. And I consider it a blocker. Instead of
migrating my current setup, I can try to use a public instance in
the future.