On 12-06-25 11:00 AM, Gary Poster wrote: > Hi Francis and Robert. [...]
> > Observations: > > * The biweekly email's summary is essentially duplicated by the > retrospective's project status. I don't think the biweekly summary adds > sufficient additional value. > Agreed. > * The biweekly email's "bugs closed" list is nice as a statement of > accomplishment and a review of what each of us in the squad have done in > the past couple of weeks. The kanban board does the same on a daily > basis. The only difference is that we aggregate two weeks and celebrate > it in the biweekly email, and we call it to the attention of Robert, > Francis, and whoever else reads. I'm not confident that the additional > value is commensurate with the cost, even though the cost is relatively > small. I don't think the "bugs closed" list is that useful. It's on the verge of too-much-information. I agree that the Kanban board is enough. > > * The biweekly email's collection of the status of tracking bugs is > nice as a statement of things we might need help on. However, the > kanban board keeps track of this, and Francis and I have a chance to > review any blocking problems every Tuesday. Again, I question the > additional value of aggregating the data for the biweekly email. Same here. > > * The biweekly email's statement of goals is the only truly unique > aspect of the email, to my evaluation. It has not been incredibly > valuable of late, but I think it still should be kept, because it has > been valuable in the past to clarify expectations between ourselves, our > manager (Francis), and our customer (Robert). I do think this is worth keeping (and adding to your weekly retrospective as you suggest). > > * The biweekly call, when we had it, to me felt unnecessary, given the > preparation I had done. If everyone read the email/document I had > prepared, it could have been much, much shorter, and perhaps we could > have had it only if someone wanted to discuss something after reading > the email. Agreed > > From those observations, I will make two alternate proposals. > > Gary's option 1: > > I no longer prepare biweekly emails. I include proposed project goals > in the weekly retrospective minutes that I produce Friday or Monday. > Everyone in this group reads them, and we have a standing *available* > time on alternate Tuesdays (New Zealand/Australia Wednesday) to have a > call if anyone requests clarification or discussion. By default *we do > not have the call*. If we have the call, the agenda is set by the > person or people who requested the call. I think this is the best option. > > Gary's option 2: > > As above, except the default is we *do* have the call. To cancel it, > Robert, Francis and Gary have to check in with one another and agree > that the call is unnecessary. If we do have the call, the agenda should > be set dynamically, and should generally not include reviewing the > retrospective email. > > Observations? Votes? Alternate proposals? > Cheers -- Francis J. Lacoste [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~yellow Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~yellow More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
