Open Stack

Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com>  wrote:

>If we're just throwing data into it without trying to use it to communicate, then I can see us having lots of different views of priority with
>the same level of "official-ness". I don't think that's what we're doing though. I think we're trying to help teams track what they've 
>committed to do and *communicate* those commitments to folks outside of the team. And from that perspective, the most important 
>definition of "priority" is the one attached by the person(s) doing the work. That's not the same as saying no one else's opinion about 
>priority matters, but it does ultimately come down someone actually doing one task before another. And I would like to be able to follow 
>along when those people prioritize work on the bugs I file.

I agree. Different people certainly may prioritize the same thing differently, but there are far more consumers of software than there are producers and the most important thing a consumer wants to know (about a feature that they're eagerly awaiting) is what is the priority of that feature to whoever is doing the work of implementing it.

There is certainly room for additional means of juggling and discussing/negotiating priorities in the stages before work really gets under way, but if it doesn't eventually become clear

1) who's doing the work
2) when are they targeting completion
3) what (if anything) is higher up on their todo list

then it's impossible for anyone else to make any sort of plans that depend on that work. Plans could include figuring out how to add more resources or contingency plans. It's also possible that people or projects may develop a reputation for not delivering on their stated top priorities, but that's at least better than having no idea what the priorities are because every person and project is making up their own system for tracking it.