Visual Studio ALM Rangers Infrastructure – Working Group Objectives … we have a dream!

In the What the Visual Studio ALM Rangers “voiced” in the FY11 Satisfaction Survey post we reported on some of the feedback and the (dis)satisfaction of the Rangers in terms of their ecosystem. This post focuses on one of the core pillars of the Rangers infrastructure, the infrastructure that is serving both the Rangers on the flyMicrosoft Corporate Network and the Rangers working remotely in the field.

So why are we creating a discussion post here? Simple … we want to be as transparent as possible, we are interested in candid feedback from both Rangers and users of Ranger solutions and because this information channel seems to be one that is easily accessible by all.

What are some of the dis-satisfactions raised by Rangers in terms of the infrastructure?

These are extracts from the satisfaction survey and other discussions. around infrastructure. Note that process and other improvements will be tackled separately.CLIPART_OF_15363_SM

  • Lot of noise on email channels that drowns everything out even though there are tags.
  • Meeting requests are added frequently to the calendar that have nothing to do with what we're actually participating in.
  • The overall growth of the virtual community has reduced the sense of intimacy across the team.
  • It's sometimes difficult to find some project artefacts because there doesn't seem to be a consistent structure for them.
  • Why can we not link the TFS Server and the Rangers SharePoint sites into the one.
  • How can I remember the forest of URLs and credentials. Can we get one door and one key?
  • What?!? The Rangers have a landing page on MSDN?
  • Where should I go to find Ranger content … Codeplex, MSDN, Blogs, … ?
  • Why is no-one ever raising their virtual hand in Ranger sessions and speaking their mind?

What should we be focusing on?

CLIPART_OF_15439_SMHere is a list of proposed objectives … DRAFT-1, dated 2011-07-07.

  1. Make the Rangers public interface more visible and better known.
  2. Make the Rangers portal interface simpler, more intuitive and a trusted “door” for all Rangers to all Ranger artefacts.
  3. Reduce the fire hose effect on email, especially the Rangers collaboration DL(s).
  4. Reduce the number of URLs and Credentials that Rangers must remember … one of each would be perfect.
  5. Improve (in many cases increase) the casual collaboration around technology and Ranger projects, which is probably in conflict with objective 3.
  6. Improve or abandon existing collaboration initiatives such as Ranger Blog, Ranger Talk, Ranger PG Chat and Ranger Flash.

Now to you …

  1. Is the sequence of objectives correct, assuming 1=most important?
  2. Are we missing objectives?
  3. Are we wasting effort on low value objectives?

Comments (0)

Skip to main content