Yes, fairly typical as you can see by the historical numbers. One of the reasons for highlighting this is so that there is incentive to improve. As we move forward with  refining our processes, better planning will be a primary focus.


On 9 April 2013 14:41, Mark Orvek <mark.orvek@linaro.org> wrote:
David,

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:35 AM, David Zinman <david.zinman@linaro.org> wrote:

Postmortem and lessons learned for Linaro's release 2013.03

https://wiki.linaro.org/Cycles/1303/Release/Review


Highlights and Key Successes
============================
http://www.linaro.org/downloads/1303

http://wiki.linaro.org/Cycles/1303/Release#Release_Information


Blueprints
=========
The number of high or essential priority blueprints that missed the cycle:
Android 4 out of 12
Developer Platform 4 out of 5
Infrastructure 1 out of 5
Lava 4 out of 7
Total 13 out of 29

45% of high or essential priority blueprints scheduled for this cycle
were not delivered.

This seems high "failure" rate.  Is it typical?

Mark
 

Total blueprints: 22 out of 45 missed the cycle.
* Not included is data from the QA team

High priority missed blueprints recap:
12.05: 19 out of 48, 39%
12.06: 13 out of 31, 42%
12.07: 14 out of 31, 45%
12.08: 6 out of 26, 23%
12.09: 9 out of 28, 32%
12.10: 15 out of 38, 39%
12.11: 7 out of 19, 37%
12.12: not available
13.01: 9 out of 28, 33%
13.02: 35 out of 69, 48%

* Not included is data from working groups and landing teams
 
Source:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjEaTwrvj1bidExFWUpKTm1iOURjdkdrdjJsX0JBbWc&usp=sharing

--
David Zinman, Project Manager
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs



--
Mark Orvek


VP, Engineering

M: +1.408.313.6988 IRC: morvek Skype: morvek 
linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs





--
David Zinman, Project Manager
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs