(I noticed that you replied to the list, and not to the bugreport. I took the liberty to send my reply to the bug as well to have a complete log of the discussion. Feel free to drop the list in the subsequent replies).
On 04/08/2016 22:22, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > > One thing I don't think we're in complete agreement about is which > problem we're trying to solve with the roadmap. Is it to gather > enthusiasm? Is it to steer Debian better? Is it to communicate to > commercial partners like HPE? Something else? I think we need to agree > on that before we try to agree on the mechanism to achieve it. > This is a very good question indeed. The main goal of the roadmap is none of those. What you listed are desirable (and expected) side effects. The main goal is to document time-limited technical sub-projects that might need more promotion and/or more manpower. As I described it during my talk, a roadmap: - reveals gaps between what we do and what we should be doing - provides a strategic view, a vision to the project - is a communication tool - can be a recruitment platform. Having a roadmap published, I expect us to: - find new contributors by showing that our work doesn't focus solely on packaging. For example, porting [1] efforts are funny problems for programmers and I am not sure those easily find how to start in our project. - give some insights about what we are doing and what we are planning to do - be able to approach partners and potential sponsors with a concrete work plan - an easy way to communicate about what we do (and about our progress) I believe those are valuable goals and a roadmap will help us to achieve them. [1] By porting, I mean both adapting code to work on new architectures and migrating some code to new versions of some libraries. Regards, -- Mehdi
