One of the challenges that every community faces, particularly teams inside a larger community, is the ability to coordinate what goals and ambitions the team is going to work on. Traditionally this has always been somewhat ad-hoc: people join a team and work on whatever they feel like. Ideas are ten-a-penny though. For most teams that work on larger projects (such as events, software, products and more) to actually be productive, coordinating this work can be complex: some projects require coordination across many people with different skill-sets, time-availability and resources. Something I would like us to work towards in the Ubuntu community is encouraging a culture of best-practise in how we plan our work and coordinate our awesome teams to work together on projects. I believe this kind of coordination can help our teams increase the opportunity for success in their work, feel more empowered and productive and provide greater insight to people outside those teams on what the team is doing. An effective way of doing this is to build a Roadmap for each cycle. This provides an opportunity to capture a set of goals the team will work together to achieve in each six-month period. This article outlines how to build such a Roadmap. While at first a roadmap can feel a little like a nod to the gods of bureaucracy, they actually possess many benefits: * Direction one of the biggest complaints teams often report is a lack of direction. If a team gets into the habit of creating a roadmap at the beginning of a cycle, it gives the team a sense of focus and direction for the coming cycle. * Documented commitments are more effective a common rule in Project Management training is that actions assigned to people in a shared document are more effective than ad-hoc or private commitments. By documenting who will work on what in a cycle and putting their name next to an action can help seal a sense of accountability for their contributions to the project. * Feeling of success regularly revisiting a roadmap and... The narrator probably believes Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. Commitments are good B. Roadmaps are bad C. Roadmaps are a good idea D. not enough information
C

I have unfriended someone over his near daily harassment of me to come over to his way of thinking. Way back in 2006, when Facebook was a young whelp and I had a newborn who steadfastly refused to sleep at night, I would sit and connect with old friends from university and high school, many of whom I had not seen or spoken with in more than a decade. One of those people was Scott. Scott was a super nice guy. He was a year ahead of me at university. He was a bit socially awkward but you really couldn't hope to meet a more genuine individual. Like most people, Scott had had some ups and downs in his life. At some point he found religion. Like he really, really found it. Now, I am somewherere between an agnostic and an atheist but my attitude is generally live and let live. But Scott couldn't do that. Almoost every day he would send me some sort of message. "What do you pray about?" I don't. "God loves you, he gave his son for you, why don't you love Him?" Because I don't believe He or his Son exist. "What are you going to say when you die and stand before Satan instead of God?" Missed that by a mile, didn't I? This went on for a few months. His questions became increasing unhinged and the only thing that mattered to him were his beliefs. Mine were of no consequence. I had asked him, politely at first and then more assertively, to stop bombarding me with his attempts to convert me or to witness to me. All to no avail. Finally, I'd had enough and decided I had better things to do. I pulled the plug and unfriended Scott. He's sent me several friend requests over the years, all of which I have summarily ignored. What did Scott continue saying? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. something atheistic B. something agnostic C. not enough information D. something religious
D

The Trump administration's recent airstrikes in Syria just the latest action in a long-running conflict that has challenged U.S. presidents of both parties has prompted a new round of questions on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers are asking where last week's strikes fit in the larger U.S. strategy in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and for greater clarity to prevent an escalation of the conflict. "There needs to be a comprehensive strategy here laid out by the administration for Congress in terms of the options to pursue because of the urgency," House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce said during a House panel Wednesday. "Does the administration support imposing costs on the Russians and the Iranians for their role in the Assad regime's war crimes against its own people?" In his speech announcing the air strikes to the American people Friday, President Trump said the United States is "prepared to sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents." But later Friday, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the latest action against Assad was a "one-time shot." Trump ordered Friday's strikes just weeks after saying the U.S. would "be coming out of Syria like very soon," reflecting changes in the administration's posture in response to Assad's reported use of prohibited chemical agents. "We're at a real risk here of conducting strikes without any clear strategy," Brian Katulis, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told VOA. "The Trump administration for the past several months has issued contradictory statements, with former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and some diplomats saying that the U.S. troops inside Syria, in eastern Syria, would be dedicated to also countering Iran inside Syria. The Pentagon was saying something completely different defeating ISIS and continuing that campaign," he said. Trump administration officials told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs committee Wednesday the president's goals in Syria remain clear. Who is responsible for the violence of the Syrian regime? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. Bashar al-Assad B. Donald Trump C. Rex Tillerson D. not enough information
A

I am always one to at least finish my shift if that happens then talking to my agency if it is agency work or some higher up boss if not. Never mind employers can ask you to leave at any time. After all, job hunting is a huge inconvenience. There is ONE exception to this rule: NOT GETTING PAID. I am not talking about if accounting messes up and you have to wait an extra day or two to get paid. If you are a good employer, I won't be happy, but I am understanding. I am talking refusing to pay or being even rumored to be not paying. I am not in the volunteer business for business owners. Only happened once I thought I had a part timer gig being a waiter at an over-priced tourist trap restaurant in the New Orleans French Quarter. As typical for these type of jobs, you do not get to actually wait tables and get tips till a training period is over. Somehow, I did not get the memo that this place did not have "training" but "auditions", meaning all that silverware I rolled and floors I mopped and food I ran to tables I was not getting paid for! Add to that, if somehow they did not like me, after a week I would not have a job! Now, I understand actors and actresses go to auditions and not get paid all the time. I've known a few amateur actors. But, those auditions do not include showing up for a week to work unpaid so maybe you might get hired from talking to them And waiters don't do auditions! I left immediately. I think they owed me 30 bucks for half a day's work at the minimum wage. Tried to go back threatening labor board and all that, but they would not be intimidated. They said there was no record of me being there and to get off property. I wrote it off to bad experience and started working another place that I had been interviewing with. Much better job. Why did the author threaten to contact the labor board? Pick the correct answer from the following options: A. Not stating payment terms before hand. B. not enough information C. Using illegal training period. D. Not being paid.
D