OKRs - 2019 Q1 Project WG #793
Conversation
ghost
assigned 
|
@momack2 @parkan @meiqimichelle @pkafei, please do your End-Q scoring when you got a moment |
|
@meiqimichelle @pkafei and @olizilla It would be great if you find the time to also retrospect for the Project Working Group, however, given that you are already doing that for 2+ WGs, I don't want to overload you with retrospecting multiple times. |
|
Based on the Project WG Roadmap -- ipfs/roadmap#2 -- here are the OKRs I propose for 2019 Q1
|
|
@ipfs/working-group-captains can I ask you to post here all the requests you have for the Project WG? We would like to plan around your needs so that we prioritize the things that will enable everyone to have most impact. |
|
O: The Working Groups are widely known in the IPFS Community and easy to get onboarded to
|
|
To O3 I'd add:
I'd also add an Objective to encompass KRs for IPFS Security Program planning and Docs&Specs coordination/maintainer onboarding. Maybe something like "new IPFS project efforts have maintainers, roadmaps, and resources", which could also include a KR for "all P0 working group openings have an active DRI and plan to onboard new contributors by EOJan". Booting/supporting the fledgling efforts we're taking on in 2019 should be a P0 to do this quarter so we can set ourselves up to execute in Q2/3. While I like O4, I'm not convinced that research contests/grants is a top priority for us in Q1. Can you explain more why you think this is urgent to do this quarter? If I were to delay one thing on our roadmap it would be the research contest item - but would like to understand your thinking here. |
Absolutely! The Research Contests are one of the most powerful ways to solve some of our biggest challenges by creating a incentivized and smart playground for the top Researchers and Hackers on the Distributed Systems field. I also believe that to make these incredible (and knowing the Research community), we will need to evolve a big part of our docs, codebase and testing infrastructure so that to meet the expectations of those communities, enabling them to be successful. |
|
One way to incentive researchers and hackers to work on IPFS issues is to offer awards or bounties on Gitcoin. Setting up issues for people to work on on Gitcoin should be a lighter lift than creating our own research contest (which of course we will do in the future). |
What data do we have that leads us to believe these are going to be the most high-leverage way to approach our biggest challenges? I recently watched this interview with Reed Hastings and he says while a contest worked that one time for Netflix, they haven't found any great-fit problems since then that are tuned for this medium. I'm supportive of us defining our problems and making them accessible to the community, but I don't feel like I've seen the data/anecdotes that validates your claim, or that we understand our own problems well enough to scope them sufficiently precisely to fit the "research contest" model vs the more iterative/interactive research grant approach. Again - not opposed to having this, just trying to make sure we use our time/resources on the most critical issues to unblock other critical 2019 efforts. To the second half of your point, if this is dependent on a big revamp of our docs, interfaces, and testing infra - shouldn't we have that in place before launching an endeavor like this? |
Not the "most", one of :) Reed Hastings interview is very interesting indeed, sad that he doesn't describe much of how their other attempts at running a contest failed (could it have been because it was less enticing? less broadcasted? harder to participate?). Well structured and incentivized Research Playgrounds have historically led to the creation of a lot of value in the areas the playground is optimizing for. Take the example of Planet Lab and its Impact, all of the presentations about it and all the papers published thanks to what it enabled.
I wasn't thinking that it is one or the other nor was I thinking that having an Objective on docs directly is less important (in fact I think it is super important and I'm glad that you wrote it down). Right now this thread is very much in expansion/collection phase, we will then have to jump to creating a compressed/distilled version for us to finally review and stand behind it. |
|
As for time exercise, just posting this here for folks to have it in mind:
|
It will probably be more efficient to force folks to highlight their 'top two' or 'top three' for Q1. Since we're moving from 2019 OKRs to one quarter of those, this exercise should be about picking the most vital to address next. From that perspective, I agree with @momack2 . I don't think developing a research and grant program is most important for Q1 (though we will support this in effect by getting our house in order via infra, docs, laying the groundwork, etc. If we want to get started, I like @pkafei 's suggestion for a lighter-weight implementation around bounties. |
|
My actual time availability: David - 11 weeks -> 55 days -> 440 hours - 60% of that = 264 hours for OKRs during the quarter. Given that 50% of my attention goes to the Project WG, then I have 132 hours to schedule for these OKRs. |
|
I plan to allocate 20% of my time to the project working group in Q1, so I have ~52.8 hours (6.5 days) to devote to these OKRs in Q1. I see myself focusing on working group support (roadmaps, metrics, tools, reports, etc), but I could also help with wg booting and IPFS conf planning as necessary. |
|
The other P1 thing in our roadmap that isn't encompassed here is the InterPlanetary Community Handbook - is that something we want to start booting in Q1 or wait to spin up more of a docs/specs team and process before taking that on? |
Co-Authored-By: daviddias <daviddias.p@gmail.com>
|
@momack2 @meiqimichelle @parkan updated the OKRs draft based on yesterday's convo and your suggestions during the day. Please do a final review:
|
I think we have too many P0s
| - `P0` - @daviddias - The IPFSConf is scheduled, announced and there is a CFP published. | ||
| - `P0` - @momack2 - The IPFS Org (Working Groups & Core Contributors) has a unified plan with goals for IPFSConf | ||
| - **The IPFS Working Groups feel supported and they have the information they need to make the best decisions** | ||
| - `P1` - @parkan - Ship the first IPFS User Quarterly Report. It documents achievements and demos of new capabilities |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@parkan are you onboard with doing quarterly user reports? My understanding is this would include lots of user experience work over collab requests - so not sure if @meiqimichelle or I would make a better DRI for packaging and phrasing this from a product/UXR perspective.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@parkan are you onboard to own this?
|
Our project wg 2019 roadmap describes two different efforts - “user
reports” on what our community is building on ipfs and what they need (a la
user research), and “project reports” that document new features and demos
of capsbilities inside ipfs itself added in the quarter.
…On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 10:12 PM David Dias ***@***.***> wrote:
***@***.**** commented on this pull request.
------------------------------
In OKR/PROJECT.md
<#793 (comment)>:
>
+- **The IPFS Org gets a fully dedicated Package Managers Working Group**
+ - `P0` - @daviddias - A Package Manager Working Group Roadmap is created
+ - `P1` - @??? - Onboard 1+ contributors to Package Managers Working Group
+- **Support and guide the IPFSConf planning and Content Curation**
+ - `P0` - @daviddias - The IPFSConf is scheduled, announced and there is a CFP running. The IPFSConf Org Team is supported by the IPFS org.
+ - `P0` - @momack2 - The IPFS Org (Working Groups & Core Contributors) has a unified plan with goals for IPFSConf
+- **The IPFS Working Groups feel supported and they have the information they need to make the best decisions**
+ - `P0` - @mikeal - We gather, process and present metrics for the IPFS Project
+ - `P1` - @parkan - Ship the first IPFS User Quarterly Report. It documents achievements and demos of new capabilities
+ - `P1` - @momack2 - Working group roadmaps are solidified, presented, and used to chart Q1 and Q2 planning
@momack2 <https://github.com/momack2> see Line 15 P1 - @parkan - Ship the
first IPFS User Quarterly Report. It documents achievements and demos of
new capabilities, how is this different?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#793 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAlwFzCcZsfDWSskCGZCsCakdO6UOJ_Vks5vCCtIgaJpZM4ZKExJ>
.
|
add dev grant program
|
Hi Project WG! We are a few outstanding comments away from finalizing our Q1 OKRs! @parkan @meiqimichelle - can you help resolve those items so we can finalize? I've also copied this over into the spreadsheet so we can freeze these and carry on with our quarter's work. |
ref #792