On 7 August 2015 at 13:50, Greg Grossmeier <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Joel (and Terry) for that explanation. > > My next question is about measuring: > > <quote name="Joel Aufrecht" date="2015-08-07" time="11:00:33 -0700"> > > So I'm leaning toward a default recommendation of: > > 1) Try to track the three buckets (core, maintenance, new functions), and > > try to confirm that teams can actually differentiate between them cleanly > > enough > > 2) don't track bug vs feature > > 3) don't track planned vs unplanned, but do be careful not to > automatically > > conflate unplanned with maintenance. > > How should a team that doesn't use story points quantify and give a > ratio to the three buckets? > > Story points being, I assume, how teams in eg Discovery, Editing, and > Readership will be measuring the size of their buckets. > My general advice is not to worry. In my experience, the number of Phabricator tasks in aggregate approximates to the work required to complete them. There are always tasks which are trivial and those which are major, but it normally doesn't skew much, so don't worry about it as long as you're not expecting perfect forecasting (and if you are, this is not the biggest of your issues). Yours, -- James D. Forrester Lead Product Manager, Editing Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. [email protected] | @jdforrester
_______________________________________________ teampractices mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
