i think this is a good idea. if there is general consensus i'll set
aside time on the next meeting's agenda to discuss.
as an aside, i think the wiki supports tables. if so i can setup a
simple 'score card' for the issues to make it easier to track the satus
of each (he says, pining away for an oasis issue tracking tool for this
very purpose ;)
b
Erik Rissanen wrote:
> All,
>
> I have been thinking a bit about the progress of XACML 3.0. It has been
> quite slow this year. I am guilty of that myself since I haven't always
> had the time to work as much on XACML as I would like to.
>
> However, I think it would be beneficial for our work if we could adopt a
> practice of assigning projected completion dates on work items in the
> issues list. This way we have a schedule which provides some incentives
> to do work. Otherwise it is easy that XACML work gets pushed back every
> time since it doesn't feel like it matters since there is no due date.
> Also, if the items are not completed on projected time, we will notice.
> Now things get silently pushed back and delays creep up on us without us
> really noticing.
>
> A schedule is also a tool to plan our work and see what are realistic
> goals to make.
>
> Of course, we have to be flexible with the schedule, but I prefer a
> schedule which slips to having no schedule at all.
>
> What do you think?
>
> If you think this is a good idea, I suggest that we go through the
> issues list and decide what we want to include in 3.0 and decide when we
> want 3.0 to be ready and then assign dates on individual items, so the
> whole adds up to a realistic finish date.
>
> Best regards,
> Erik
>
--
VP Technical Services
Simula Labs - The Open Source Venture Partners
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 520
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
t: +1 310 437-4888
f: +1 800 822-0471
