Create ROADMAP.md

[nwinch]

There are some open issues with discussions that have reached conclusion by general consensus after thorough debate. Some of these discussions now possibly hang on future tech/outside decisions before redbeard revisits them to be folded in to the mix.

I propose that instead of leaving these as open issues tagged "discussion", we seek to add the agreed outcome to ROADMAP.md outlining what is looking to be done in the future.

This will help in two ways:

• Bolstering relevance for open issues. Issues should be as "fresh" as possible so as to promote healthy throughput of work, and give contributors a reasonably up to date snapshot of redbeards progress. Stale issues can, potentially, give the wrong impression to newcomers. We want to allow discussions to naturally ebb and flow, but also this should be bound to a reasonable time period. Clearing issues frequently, where possible, will help the growth of redbeard.
• Ensure discussions don't lag. Often, issues can exist for longer than they should, and are left stagnating if no one tends to them. Considering this is everyone's responsibility to maintain issues, it can be easily overlooked. Once discussions have reached agreement and there is a resulting action, it can be added to the roadmap for future actions, or closed appropriately.

Thoughts?

[kaievns]

i kind of don't like roadmaps as they imply a predefined list of changes. i'd rather build things via issues dynamically as the needs for features arise

[nwinch]

I agree with that, though that is parallel to what I'm saying.

Do you agree/disagree with the points I've outlined above? If we remove "roadmap" from the discussion, how do we close off (without closing and forgetting) long running issues/discussions that have come to a decision but won't be implemented right away?

[kaievns]

i reckon it should be a ticket that's marked "good to have". my point here is that there is always must be an outcome of a discussion. even if that's a "maybe" it is still a refined idea that came from the discussion and it should be turned into a task.

the difference between a task (or a ticket) and a roadmap in my view is that. a task's execution can be scheduled as needed, where roadmap is more of a commitment to ship it; which can be misleading and mess with the priorities.

to put it in different words, there are two groups in my view. one is where roadmaps and waterfall belongs, and another one is where backlogs and sprints are. if that makes sense.

i feel like what you're referring as a "roadmap" is something that resembles more of a high-level strategy and the end goal definitions rather than an attack plan with versions and steps

[nwinch]

Maybe those issues just need a meaningful label as you suggested? Yep, I think that would scratch my itch, and then you can just filter them in/out whenever.