Hello everyone,
we, the Tor Metrics Team, have finished writing our roadmap for the 12 months between October 2017 and September 2018:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/raw-attachment/wiki/org/teams/Metri...
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/MetricsTeam#Roadmapf...
In the process of writing this roadmap we incorporated feedback from various people in the Tor community, including suggestions made on this list.
And if something didn't make it on this year's roadmap, we made a note to reconsider in about a year from now.
In any case, thanks a lot for contributing to this process!
Stay tuned for more Tor Metrics!
All the best, Karsten
Karsten Loesing:
Hello everyone,
we, the Tor Metrics Team, have finished writing our roadmap for the 12 months between October 2017 and September 2018:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/raw-attachment/wiki/org/teams/Metri...
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/MetricsTeam#Roadmapf...
In the process of writing this roadmap we incorporated feedback from various people in the Tor community, including suggestions made on this list.
And if something didn't make it on this year's roadmap, we made a note to reconsider in about a year from now.
Hm. There are teams like the Tor Browser people who are doing roadmaps only from dev meeting to dev meeting, meaning for 6 months. Actually, that 6 months or dev-meeting to dev-meeting roadmapping is exactly what Isabela said we (should) do in https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2017-November/001564.html:
""" - Next Tor Meeting is arriving, we do the balance of what we have finished, what we will carry on and start selecting tasks for the next roadmap we will be building at the next Tor Meeting. """
So I wonder how this fits into your model. I am especially concerned about stuff that comes up at the next dev meeting that would be a concern for the metrics team as it seems to me, reading what you wrote above, that it would not be considered for the roadmap for the current year but rather would have to wait for the year thereafter.
Georg
On 2017-11-17 21:29, Georg Koppen wrote:
Karsten Loesing:
Hello everyone,
we, the Tor Metrics Team, have finished writing our roadmap for the 12 months between October 2017 and September 2018:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/raw-attachment/wiki/org/teams/Metri...
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/MetricsTeam#Roadmapf...
In the process of writing this roadmap we incorporated feedback from various people in the Tor community, including suggestions made on this list.
And if something didn't make it on this year's roadmap, we made a note to reconsider in about a year from now.
Hm. There are teams like the Tor Browser people who are doing roadmaps only from dev meeting to dev meeting, meaning for 6 months. Actually, that 6 months or dev-meeting to dev-meeting roadmapping is exactly what Isabela said we (should) do in https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2017-November/001564.html:
"""
- Next Tor Meeting is arriving, we do the balance of what we have
finished, what we will carry on and start selecting tasks for the next roadmap we will be building at the next Tor Meeting. """
So I wonder how this fits into your model. I am especially concerned about stuff that comes up at the next dev meeting that would be a concern for the metrics team as it seems to me, reading what you wrote above, that it would not be considered for the roadmap for the current year but rather would have to wait for the year thereafter.
I'm optimistic that we'd be able (and willing!) to make room for such needs.
I just said (or meant to say) that we included some, but not all suggestions we received over the past few weeks, and that we're going to reconsider adding the ones we did not include now in next year's roadmap.
Note that we picked 12 months as timeframe, not 6, because that seemed to make more sense at the time we started writing this roadmap in September 2017. The idea was to generate input for the fundraising team, and my understanding was that a 6 month timeframe wouldn't be enough for that.
Hope this makes sense.
Georg
All the best, Karsten
Karsten Loesing:
On 2017-11-17 21:29, Georg Koppen wrote:
Karsten Loesing:
Hello everyone,
we, the Tor Metrics Team, have finished writing our roadmap for the 12 months between October 2017 and September 2018:
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/raw-attachment/wiki/org/teams/Metri...
https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/MetricsTeam#Roadmapf...
In the process of writing this roadmap we incorporated feedback from various people in the Tor community, including suggestions made on this list.
And if something didn't make it on this year's roadmap, we made a note to reconsider in about a year from now.
Hm. There are teams like the Tor Browser people who are doing roadmaps only from dev meeting to dev meeting, meaning for 6 months. Actually, that 6 months or dev-meeting to dev-meeting roadmapping is exactly what Isabela said we (should) do in https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-project/2017-November/001564.html:
"""
- Next Tor Meeting is arriving, we do the balance of what we have
finished, what we will carry on and start selecting tasks for the next roadmap we will be building at the next Tor Meeting. """
So I wonder how this fits into your model. I am especially concerned about stuff that comes up at the next dev meeting that would be a concern for the metrics team as it seems to me, reading what you wrote above, that it would not be considered for the roadmap for the current year but rather would have to wait for the year thereafter.
I'm optimistic that we'd be able (and willing!) to make room for such needs.
I just said (or meant to say) that we included some, but not all suggestions we received over the past few weeks, and that we're going to reconsider adding the ones we did not include now in next year's roadmap.
Note that we picked 12 months as timeframe, not 6, because that seemed to make more sense at the time we started writing this roadmap in September 2017. The idea was to generate input for the fundraising team, and my understanding was that a 6 month timeframe wouldn't be enough for that.
Hope this makes sense.
It does. Thanks for these clarifications.
Georg
Georg
All the best, Karsten
-
Georg Koppen -
Karsten Loesing