Ok, since the thread http://forums.asp.net/2/1209870/ShowPost.aspx#1209870 has gotten sooo hot, flamed, & personal (sometimes understandably so)....I'd like to start a new, focused, discussion of how the DNN Sub-Projects' progress are measured and communicated to the larger userbase.

"That which is not measured is not managed" (sorry, don't know who to attribute that to)

To that end, let's OBJECTIVELY talk about how projects are managed--how that is measured and how it is communicated.  To that end, it appears that there are three actively defined levels of work: 

• Sponsor -- Ultimately responsible for keeping project within the overall guidlines and purposes of the DNN mother project.  This seems to include communicating with the Core Team, which has their own forums, and periodic conference calls. 
  • This also includes (if the sponsor doesn't double-up) picking/shepherding a Team Leader.  Obviously (negative as it is) this implies that it is the responsibility of the Sponsor to remove said Team Leader if there is a lack of progress, breech of guidelines, or other cause...
  • What are the criteria to measure wether a sponsor needs to be replaced?  Who would make that determination?
  • Team Leader -- Responsible for the overall roadmap, selection of Team Members, delegation of tasks. 
    • Obviously (negative as it is) this implies that it is the responsibility of the Team Leader to remove a Team Member if there is a lack of progress, breech of guidelines, or other cause...
    • Obviously, they have to keep their Sponsor up to date... 
    • But what are the commitments to the community at large?  This person is a "leader," not just a coder....so although it is a volunteer project, is it unreasonable to require a finve-minute public post per month?  If so then perhaps the individual would be better suited as a Team Member happily coding away in private.
    • What other, objective, quantifiable criteria measure wether a Team Leader needs to be replaced (or promoted to Core Team for that matter)?
    • Team Member -- Responsible for tasks as assgined by the Team Leader.  These could include coding, testing, documentation, etc....a Team Leader might even delegate public communication.

    Yes, DNN is a volunteer project--and to those who volunteer, THANK YOU!  But if I go to donate blood and am not physically up to it, then the nurses will politely turn me away... 

    A coder does not always make a good leader, a leader does not always make a good coder.  The project must utilize people as best fits their diverse talents--which does not always align with their stated interests.  Positions and responsibilities evolve, sometimes we get in over our head and need a little help focusing our efforts where they can best be utilized.

    We cannot simply say "contribute whatever you wish to, and welcome to management," management entails measurement and communication (to your boss, your subordinates--and yes, to the stakeholders at large).  While the projects will all be somewhat different, hopefully there can be a common set of minimum metrics to help the leaders guide themselves.

    We need objective measures to keep things progressing, address deficiencies, and keep the flames off. 

RLyda wrote:

Ok, since the thread http://forums.asp.net/2/1209870/ShowPost.aspx#1209870 has gotten sooo hot, flamed, & personal (sometimes understandably so)....I'd like to start a new, focused, discussion of how the DNN Sub-Projects' progress are measured and communicated to the larger userbase.

"That which is not measured is not managed" (sorry, don't know who to attribute that to)

IMHO  what the issue here's is that we as users are expecting and sometimes demanding progress from a group of volunteers, so we can benefit sometimes and in some cases financially gain from their work.  

This seems to me like tantamounts to "PART-TIME" slavery. I must be missing something. What's the motivation that drives the core team.  Why would they want to give up their personal time and be put under some sort of managed  measured deadline, to get something out, so others can gain from their work.

ray

Good post.

The problem as I see it is that a number of the sub-projects were invited to become part of DNN (I'm thinking of the Repository, Firebird(?) provider, and Authentication modules off the top of my head). Now Steve has been busting his butt with bug fixes and new features for free instead of earning money on the Repository like he used to. Michael hasn't had much of a chance to release anything so time will tell but I'm pretty sure he's committed. Tam...I'm not going say he isn't committed as he works very hard on the Forum project but the Authentication project has pretty much languished since it's inclusion in 3.2. I guess the point I'm trying to maike is what right does the core team have to go to a project leader that they asked to include their project as part of DNN and say "You're not working out so we're going to take away the project you created and give it to someone else."

Mike

Perhaps you can enlighten me, I see by you tag that you are in the project team.  What's you rmotivation for giving up your personal time. EGO? Recognition? Giving Back?  How do you feel about being pressured about putting somehting out with a financial incentive?  ( I know how i would feel )

ray

Both good points.  And Mike, yes there must be some "political" consideration of Leaders (and Members) who donated substantial time/code.  My point here would be:  what is the difference between simply contributing code, and managing a project?  Anyone in the community can contribute code--but there is a clear, legal, document that sets the ONLY measurable expectation as source attribution.  Is this all that is to be required of a Team Leader?  In most conotations, leadership means more than that...  What distinquishes a Team Leader from a Team Member--simply that they wrote more of the code?

Now in the current Team Leaders' defence, I do not think these expectations have been very well debated & explained (at least not in public).  Perhaps this discussion will help with that...

I do realize that each project may be different, attract different types of talent, require different timelines, or even require different management styles.  But it would seem that there ARE, and probably should be, some common minimum expectations expressed by the community at large. 

Some might say we are the "stakeholders;" yes whether utilizing the code as-is, or extending it considerably; whether as part of our own support of charities & other non-profits, or exploiting the opportunities for profit.  Shaun & the Core Team have given this to us--expressly allowing us to do any or all of it--let's not defend againts an objective discussion of project opportunities/deficiencies by simply reverting to "it's volunteer" and flaming...

What are those community expectations?  Which ones would be "best pratices," "realistic," or even what the exceptional efforts of the Core Team to date have led us to expect?  I would hope that an objective, measureable, publishable list of requirements might both

• Help Team Leaders excell (some may not have project management experience and simply be invited into DNN because they coded a "killer app")
• Help avoid the attack, counter-attack threads that arise from a simple lack of communication

RLyda wrote:

...there must be some "political" consideration of Leaders (and Members) who donated substantial time/code.

For simple clarification, there is no "political" consideration involved here... although there is respect for the individual.  In cases where an entire project or "identifiable chunk of functionality" is turned into a project ( as with AD ), a legal "grant" is actually required in order to ensure that users of DotNetNuke are properly indemnified from any chance of legal corruption of the BSD license.  The case with AD is even more so, since it became part of the core framework.  And typically when we ask someone to grant their IP to DotNetNuke we also invite them to come along with it to nurture its growth, and we try to provide a lot of latitude in doing that.

I can't preemptively answer every question here.  But I can tell you that there is a lot more involved in all of this than the majority of "simplistic" posts would indicate.  If things were as simple as this, they would all be worked out... we're not without just a little bit of skill and dedication around here.  We work very hard to keep people motivated to contribute but this expectation that somehow they "owe" all of us doesn't really contribute positively to a solution. This is a much more objective thread and we are sympathetic to the issue(s), but they are not easily solved.  You ( that's a collective "the community" you ) don't always see everything we do and the fact is that you're just not going to.  Its just not realistically possible for every aspect of large groups operations to be completely transparent to everyone, and thats not a function of politics... its a function of physics ( time, space and sheer capacity ).

On a more constructive note, we are actively working on bringing in just a few ( not many ) more projects to round out the "basic portal" offering and provide some alternatives.  We must balance our internal projects with respect for the commercial market ( though individuals are free to create and distribute whatever they wish).  We're also visiting with every project lead ( and were doing so long before this thread started, just to be clear -- I've been working on this since December ) to reassess their ability ( which is not the same as their desire ) to meet the expectations of the role.

Lastly... to clarify for Mike H... our original effort with regards to the Repository was to enhance the project we already had (RDM), contributed by Patrick Santry.  But we could not identify an appropriate candidate to oversee the upgrade and enhancement of that project.  We offered that role to Steve, who volunteered to bring GRM to the table, and the rest is history.

"Politics" have very limited place in a meritocracy.

Cheers

I think the other aspect here which Scott doesn't cover is that we (the core team) are very interested in what the community thinks and are interested in improving where needed.  We are open to having a civil dialogue about ways in which we can improve the project, including ways we can improve our communications.  But any discussion must also recognize that we are as much a part of the community as anyone not on the core.  We do not enjoy threads which devolve into flames, but we also will not sit back and be a punching bag for someone who may not see things the same way we do.  We have put our "work" out in the open for any and all to use as they see fit and expect a certain amount of  criticism that will always come, but like all things in life, it is much easier to accept that criticism when it is given in a manner that is not condescedning or demeaning.

I actually enjoy reading threads like this because it allows us to have a serious conversation and learn where we can improve without feeling like we are being attacked.  As much as the core team needs to work on our communication, I think the same can also be said of the "community" as well.

GOHDS wrote:

Mike

Perhaps you can enlighten me, I see by you tag that you are in the project team.  What's you rmotivation for giving up your personal time. EGO? Recognition? Giving Back?  How do you feel about being pressured about putting somehting out with a financial incentive?  ( I know how i would feel )

ray

My motivation? Purely an attempt to contribute in any way that I can to something I feel passionate about. As far as pressure goes, I don't face much as my role is more QA than anything. It's the coders that face the pressure.

mrswoop wrote:

Lastly... to clarify for Mike H... our original effort with regards to the Repository was to enhance the project we already had (RDM), contributed by Patrick Santry.  But we could not identify an appropriate candidate to oversee the upgrade and enhancement of that project.  We offered that role to Steve, who volunteered to bring GRM to the table, and the rest is history.

"Politics" have very limited place in a meritocracy.

Cheers

Scott. my apologies for any misinformation stated by myself.

Mike, while we are getting an inside perspective...  How do YOU view the difference between a Team Leader and a Team Member?  Has this influenced what you volunteered for?  How much of your time is spent in development versus communication within the team?  Do you feel that such communication is an undue burden?  Does your Team Leader prefer to control all posts to the project's pages, or do they encourage all Team Members to help keep the public informed?  How many repeated threads, or outright complaints/flames, do you see that could have been prevented by a short monthly status report?

I hope you don't feel like you're now on the hot seat. 

In general, while there IS and always will be a LOT more going on behind the scenes, the simple fact is that the Core Team has raised the bar (community expectations) through their on-going, conscious, communications efforts (e.g. New, Blogs, Forums, Newsletters)...