Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Feb 12, 2024. It is now read-only.

docs: 2018 Q3 OKRs #1409

Merged
merged 15 commits into from
Jul 17, 2018
4 changes: 4 additions & 0 deletions OKR.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -2,6 +2,10 @@

We try to frame our ongoing work using a process based on quarterly Objectives and Key Results (OKRs). Objectives reflect outcomes that are challenging, but realistic. Results are tangible and measurable.

## 2018 Q3
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Let's continue discussing the OKRs over the markdown, taking inspiration from the notes already shared in this thread.

I've defined 3 main objectives (rewording is welcome if you see the need) for this quarter which capture the most requested and needed features and bug fixes.

Let's shoot to get the final list of KRs by Wednesday, final review on Thursday and ship it on Friday.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@alanshaw @hugomrdias @achingbrain. I went again through your list of suggestions and completed the list of KRs. Please review:

  • Check if wording makes sense.
  • Check if they are achievable this quarter.
  • Check the ones you will want to take the lead.

I've assigned some KRs already, given that they are a continuation of previous work.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do you think it's worth having a 'technical debt' section for things similar to the CI testing time item?

Feature parity with the go API would also be a good thing to shoot for.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

CI testing time is contemplated in the third objective.

What features (APIs) do you feel js-ipfs urgently needs that go-ipfs has that are not captured by the current OKRs?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What features (APIs) do you feel js-ipfs urgently needs

The biggest pain for me at the moment is the DAG API being incomplete.

Also npm-on-ipfs needs ipfs.name.resolve and ipfs.name.publish which I don't think are implemented yet although I guess that would be captured by the 'make npm-on-ipfs a thing' OKR.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@achingbrain IPNS is landing this quarter by the libp2p team. Note that publishing and resolving names is for sharing the registry only, all the rest should work without it which is the bulk of the challenge.


Find the **js-ipfs OKRs** for 2018 Q3 at the [2018 Q3 IPFS OKRs Spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19vjigg4locq4fO6JXyobS2yTx-k-fSzlFM5ngZDPDbQ/edit#gid=274358435)

## 2018 Q2

Find the **js-ipfs OKRs** for 2018 Q2 at the [2018 Q2 IPFS OKRs Spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xIhKROxFlsY9M9on37D5rkbSsm4YtjRQvG2unHScApA/edit#gid=274358435)
Expand Down