[Development] New JIRA type 'Feature'? (was RE: FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process)

[Alan Alpert]

On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Koehne Kai <Kai.Koehne at digia.com> wrote:
> Alright, discussion about a new JIRA type 'Feature' went on at
>
>  https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTJIRA-233
>
> with two different ideas:
>
> 1) That we already have too many issue types in JIRA, and adding another one makes things just worse, since the line between different types is blurry anyway
>
> 2) that a separate 'Feature' type that's can only be created by approvers, and follows stricter standards, is a good thing to let roadmap / important features stand out
>
>
> I personally think it's useful, but also think it only makes sense if the type is really used by at least the majority of maintainers ...
>
>
> So, I'd like to ask specifically you, the maintainers: Would you use a separate 'Feature' type? This is meant to describe things that typically would show up on a roadmap & release blog, or that you'd want to discuss with stakeholders ...
>
> Regards
>
> Kai
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Blasche Alexander
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:32 PM
>> To: Koehne Kai; Koehne Kai; Alan Alpert; Bubke Marco
>> Cc: development at qt-project.org
>> Subject: RE: [Development] FW: Proposal for RFC like feature process
>>
>> Creating an issue type is very easy. What's not easy is to commonly agree on
>> what each type means and to consistently apply them. That's something
>> where no admin can help as the community has to agree upon it.
>>
>> For what is is worth I am very much in favor of such a feature type.
>>
>> --
>> Alex
>>
>> <rant>
>> Unless a benevolent dictator comes around my experience tells me that
>> there won't be an agreement any time soon(10 years of issue tracking inside
>> Qt seem to have gotten the better of me).
>> </rant>
>>

Alex's argument is entirely correct here (rant esp.). So I'm only in
favor of a new feature type if we can agree on the meaning and then
have a realistic expectation that we'll apply it consistently.

Specific questions I have about the feature type are

A) Do we have a clear distinction between Feature and Suggestion (also
Feature and Task)?
B) Can contributors create Tasks? If not, would using Task again help?
Since it's already there we can start using it while having the
discussion of what it means, call it an advanced feasibility use-case
trial.
C) Isn't a "roadmap" in an open governance project now defined by what
tasks people are working on? So wouldn't "in progress" state on high
priority suggestions/tasks/bugs be more appropriate as the "roadmap"?
Why are contributors who are working on such items any different from
approvers?

I would also not expect stakeholder discussions to be easier or more
fruitful if they could happen in JIRA instead. Which some possibly
should already have done, so my ability to consistently communicate
through JIRA may not be high enough to handle a new issue type ;) .

--
Alan Alpert