Test out the PM Process on go-ipfs Project

[flyingzumwalt]

Other than a bit of rewording (I've got a PR incoming on that front), the main things we need to do to the PM document are to

• add good, concrete examples
• tweak it to work as a clear, straightforward guide that people can rely on and refer to
• define roles clearly

Rather than cooking those up in the abstract, I propose that @em-ly, @whyrusleeping and I try applying this model, as it's expressed in the document right now, to go-ipfs. That will let us

• figure out what's confusing or unclear in the document
• sort out an iplementation of the mechanics -- translating this model into real, working GH issues, milestones, roadmap, waffle board, etc (inspired by existing examples in js-ipfs and orbit)
• identify good examples to explain the model

I'm suggesting go-ipfs as the starting point because

1. Its waffle board as-is seems to be the closest reflection of a "middle of the road" implementation of mechanics (though some tweaks still necessary)
2. Getting the PM process and roles right for go-ipfs will free up @jbenet's time
3. It lets us experiment with the distinction between responsibilities of a Project Lead (@whyrusleeping), Project Manager (@em-ly) and Product Owner (@jbenet) so that we can represent it accurately in the PM document.
4. It lets us revisit the go-ipfs roadmap & milestones for Q3 while we figure out the mechanics for expressing the Project Roadmap

Whaddaya think?

cc @haadcode @diasdavid @RichardLitt

[daviddias]

Sounds good :) Thank you @flyingzumwalt

[RichardLitt]

SGTM2.

[flyingzumwalt]

@whyrusleeping @em-ly how do you want to start this? Phone call? @whyrusleeping when will you be traveling?

[whyrusleeping]

i'll be in a plane on monday, shortly after the sprint.

[daviddias]

Is go-ipfs fully onboarded in the PM process? What is missing exactly?

[flyingzumwalt]

Yes it's basically onboarded. I want to do a final pass, mainly watching how we use the waffle board and the roadmap. I also will be updating the PM document to remove minor stuff that we're not doing and seem to be fine without.

It's fine to close this issue though. We've done what it proposes -- testing the PM process with the go-ipfs project.