<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="margin: 0px;">Is this something contributors could be involved with in some aspect/capacity (I am interested) or do you think this would be staff only?</div><div><br></div></div> <div id="bloop_sign_1393904160575678976" class="bloop_sign"><div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">---------------------------</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">Benjamin Sternthal</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><a href="mailto:ben@sternthal.org" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">ben@sternthal.org</a><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">skype: booboobenny</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; widows: 2;">(m) 503.702.0963</span></div></div> <br><p style="color:#A0A0A8;">On March 3, 2014 at 5:52:02 PM, teampractices-request@lists.wikimedia.org (<a href="mailto://teampractices-request@lists.wikimedia.org">teampractices-request@lists.wikimedia.org</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div>Send teampractices mailing list submissions to<br> teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org<br><br>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices<br>or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br> teampractices-request@lists.wikimedia.org<br><br>You can reach the person managing the list at<br> teampractices-owner@lists.wikimedia.org<br><br>When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>than "Re: Contents of teampractices digest..."<br><br><br>Today's Topics:<br><br> 1. Re: Feedback requested on proposal for creation of Agile<br> Specialist Group (Steven Walling)<br> 2. Re: Feedback requested on proposal for creation of Agile<br> Specialist Group (Arthur Richards)<br> 3. Re: Feedback requested on proposal for creation of Agile<br> Specialist Group (Arthur Richards)<br> 4. Re: [Engineering] Feedback requested on proposal for creation<br> of Agile Specialist Group (Arthur Richards)<br> 5. Re: [Engineering] Feedback requested on proposal for creation<br> of Agile Specialist Group (Oliver Keyes)<br><br><br>----------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Message: 1<br>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:33:30 -0800<br>From: Steven Walling <swalling@wikimedia.org><br>To: A mailing list to discuss team practices in Wikimedia<br> organizations <teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org><br>Cc: Development and Operations Engineers<br> <engineering@lists.wikimedia.org><br>Subject: Re: [teampractices] Feedback requested on proposal for<br> creation of Agile Specialist Group<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAMryOMV8wtrkOh2-aOFcKmFmn534VeYmvh+quFDDO_ZUp15PEw@mail.gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br><br>On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Katie Horn <khorn@wikimedia.org> wrote:<br><br>> Does this mean you're offering to stand up a roving band of nomadic<br>> scrummasters, if that's what the teams decide they want? If so, please sign<br>> me up at the very top of that signup list.<br>><br><br>What Katie and Dan said.<br><br><br>-- <br>Steven Walling,<br>Product Manager<br>https://wikimediafoundation.org/<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20140303/b9a3e722/attachment-0001.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 2<br>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:06:25 -0700<br>From: Arthur Richards <arichards@wikimedia.org><br>To: A mailing list to discuss team practices in Wikimedia<br> organizations <teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org><br>Subject: Re: [teampractices] Feedback requested on proposal for<br> creation of Agile Specialist Group<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAG5YvhL5NX42aWC0iSwG9uTut2rBN8XnmSSv72=CqP+wY7x2fg@mail.gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Katie Horn <khorn@wikimedia.org> wrote:<br><br>> "Providing dedicated resourcing for a team's scrummaster (or similar) role"<br>><br>> Does this mean you're offering to stand up a roving band of nomadic<br>> scrummasters, if that's what the teams decide they want? If so, please sign<br>> me up at the very top of that signup list.<br>><br><br>Basically yes, although I'm not sure 'roving band' is an accurate way to<br>describe it. Imagine the relationship that the product group has with<br>engineering teams - a product manager may work with one or two engineering<br>teams in the same way that an agile specialist in the ASG may work as a<br>scrummaster with one or two engineering teams. I imagine the scrummasters<br>would be roving inasmuch as product managers rove.<br><br>-- <br>Arthur Richards<br>Software Engineer, Mobile<br>[[User:Awjrichards]]<br>IRC: awjr<br>+1-415-839-6885 x6687<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20140303/714ddea5/attachment-0001.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 3<br>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:07:40 -0700<br>From: Arthur Richards <arichards@wikimedia.org><br>To: A mailing list to discuss team practices in Wikimedia<br> organizations <teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org><br>Cc: Development and Operations Engineers<br> <engineering@lists.wikimedia.org><br>Subject: Re: [teampractices] Feedback requested on proposal for<br> creation of Agile Specialist Group<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAG5YvhKuWs7=qOz5DY_8VyacroYkfPfG4MJXVt1CmNw0aGBm6A@mail.gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>Forgot to reply-all...<br><br>On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Katie Horn <khorn@wikimedia.org> wrote:<br><br>> "Providing dedicated resourcing for a team's scrummaster (or similar) role"<br>><br>> Does this mean you're offering to stand up a roving band of nomadic<br>> scrummasters, if that's what the teams decide they want? If so, please sign<br>> me up at the very top of that signup list.<br>><br><br>Basically yes, although I'm not sure 'roving band' is an accurate way to<br>describe it. Imagine the relationship that the product group has with<br>engineering teams - a product manager may work with one or two engineering<br>teams in the same way that an agile specialist in the ASG may work as a<br>scrummaster with one or two engineering teams. I imagine the scrummasters<br>would be roving inasmuch as product managers rove.<br><br>-- <br>Arthur Richards<br>Software Engineer, Mobile<br>[[User:Awjrichards]]<br>IRC: awjr<br>+1-415-839-6885 x6687<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20140303/3486dd3a/attachment-0001.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 4<br>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 18:12:38 -0700<br>From: Arthur Richards <arichards@wikimedia.org><br>To: Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org><br>Cc: Development and Operations Engineers<br> <engineering@lists.wikimedia.org>, A mailing list to discuss team<br> practices in Wikimedia organizations<br> <teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org><br>Subject: Re: [teampractices] [Engineering] Feedback requested on<br> proposal for creation of Agile Specialist Group<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAG5YvhJDC8ZwA6fignH5LUrWPForGv5=y-TQWLBosK2kCu-fNw@mail.gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> wrote:<br><br>> So, I'm not an Engineer, I just work here, but my first thought is: you<br>> want to *start* with 3 staff, and scale it up to 5 within the same budget<br>> year, for this?<br>><br>> The justification is a pretty good justification for having *some*resources; teams are finding your knowledge and mentorship useful, you<br>> don't have the time to provide as much knowledge and mentorship as people<br>> need. But do you and Tomasz really have five staffers' worth of work you're<br>> currently having to turn down? Because that's what your ask necessitates.<br>> I'd be more comfortable with the idea of hiring a single person and, if<br>> they report 'gosh, I'm terribly overworked', hiring a second or even a<br>> third at the start of the next budget cycle, but I can't see any<br>> explanation in your proposal of why five are necessary: the only example of<br>> training you guys have provided that you explicitly call out is a session<br>> last August.<br>><br>> If mentorship on scrumming is necessary, mentorship on scrumming is<br>> necessary. But we need to be very careful about how we spend money. What<br>> you're asking for is an entire Features team worth of money to train the<br>> engineers we currently have - on an opt-in basis. That sort of ask requires<br>> an active demonstration that this workload exists, and I'm not seeing it in<br>> your argument. I'd like an explanation of where you guys have five<br>> scrum-masters worth of work, and why it wouldn't be just as effective, and<br>> far more efficient, to take our existing engineers and spend a relative<br>> pittance getting the Scrummaster Certification and external training for<br>> *them*that you say the ASG will need anyway.<br>><br><br>I think the interest already expressed on this thread from Katie, Steven,<br>and Dan justifies the budgeted resourcing.<br><br>Note too that the proposal has the ASG ramping up resourcing iteratively,<br>starting out with the group's head and two full time positions. Think of<br>this as the group's alpha phase, starting to tease out what works and what<br>doesn't, determining early on whether or not the propose approach is sound.<br>Assuming that the demand (and projected demand) is there, and that the<br>group and engineering as a whole felt the approach taken by the ASG to be<br>successful, the group would grow after two quarters.<br><br>-- <br>Arthur Richards<br>Software Engineer, Mobile<br>[[User:Awjrichards]]<br>IRC: awjr<br>+1-415-839-6885 x6687<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20140303/60ebd229/attachment-0001.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 5<br>Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:51:51 -0800<br>From: Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org><br>To: Arthur Richards <arichards@wikimedia.org><br>Cc: Development and Operations Engineers<br> <engineering@lists.wikimedia.org>, A mailing list to discuss team<br> practices in Wikimedia organizations<br> <teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org><br>Subject: Re: [teampractices] [Engineering] Feedback requested on<br> proposal for creation of Agile Specialist Group<br>Message-ID:<br> <CAAUQgdD2hY5F3TUbn9hY2VzY3STVruyZRvqE5eJOL8LZD6_hHQ@mail.gmail.com><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br><br>On 3 March 2014 17:12, Arthur Richards <arichards@wikimedia.org> wrote:<br><br>><br>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> wrote:<br>><br>>> So, I'm not an Engineer, I just work here, but my first thought is: you<br>>> want to *start* with 3 staff, and scale it up to 5 within the same<br>>> budget year, for this?<br>>><br>>> The justification is a pretty good justification for having *some*resources; teams are finding your knowledge and mentorship useful, you<br>>> don't have the time to provide as much knowledge and mentorship as people<br>>> need. But do you and Tomasz really have five staffers' worth of work you're<br>>> currently having to turn down? Because that's what your ask necessitates.<br>>> I'd be more comfortable with the idea of hiring a single person and, if<br>>> they report 'gosh, I'm terribly overworked', hiring a second or even a<br>>> third at the start of the next budget cycle, but I can't see any<br>>> explanation in your proposal of why five are necessary: the only example of<br>>> training you guys have provided that you explicitly call out is a session<br>>> last August.<br>>><br>>> If mentorship on scrumming is necessary, mentorship on scrumming is<br>>> necessary. But we need to be very careful about how we spend money. What<br>>> you're asking for is an entire Features team worth of money to train the<br>>> engineers we currently have - on an opt-in basis. That sort of ask requires<br>>> an active demonstration that this workload exists, and I'm not seeing it in<br>>> your argument. I'd like an explanation of where you guys have five<br>>> scrum-masters worth of work, and why it wouldn't be just as effective, and<br>>> far more efficient, to take our existing engineers and spend a relative<br>>> pittance getting the Scrummaster Certification and external training for<br>>> *them*that you say the ASG will need anyway.<br>>><br>><br>> I think the interest already expressed on this thread from Katie, Steven,<br>> and Dan justifies the budgeted resourcing.<br>><br>> I'm not sure I agree that a 1.6:1 staffer:person who says they need a<br>staffer ratio is necessarily a justification for the budgeting. Where's my<br>1.6 personal chefs? But, I'd make two points.<br><br>The first is: the interest expressed by Katie, Steven and Dan is indeed<br>interest, but they all seem to be asking for something different from what<br>you're proposing. You're proposing a roving band of individuals with two<br>roles: acting as scrummasters for teams that don't have scrummasters, and<br>providing advice for engineers who want to be scrummasters. If I've<br>misunderstood, I apologise. Everyone so far seems to be saying "we don't<br>have enough resourcing on our team to be scrumming as well as engineering"<br>- not "we don't know how" but "we have too much crap to do". So is the<br>answer advisors, or just hiring engineers for the teams that need them with<br>a focus in the JDs and interview processes on people with scrum experience<br>willing to take up being a scrum master as a primary duty? Because it's<br>sounding a lot closer to the latter than the former, and I'd hope that the<br>latter could be covered by Features' and Platform's existing budget items,<br>or worked in if they're not already there.<br><br>The second is: we're a non-profit. Sure, people want the ASG. People want a<br>whole *host* of things. If I went around Features with a blank cheque<br>asking each team if they wanted a dedicated Liaison who was theirs and<br>theirs alone, I imagine I'd probably get a lot of "dear god, *please*". If<br>I asked people if they wanted a dedicated BA, probably the same (although<br>not so much). If I asked everyone if they wanted a dedicated<br>researcher...well, I've been in the meetings assigning primary and<br>secondary roles to us researchers, and there are a lot more areas than<br>people ;p. Unfortunately, I don't have that blank cheque - none of us do.<br>People simply expressing interest in having resources available does not<br>make that resourcing the best use of our highly limited funds, and I have a<br>pretty serious worry that us creating this group would swiftly lead to us<br>ignoring other ways of doing the same thing and perpetuating the situation<br>unless (if/when) the wheels fall off, because we treat its existence as a<br>sunk cost.<br><br><br>> Note too that the proposal has the ASG ramping up resourcing iteratively,<br>> starting out with the group's head and two full time positions. Think of<br>> this as the group's alpha phase, starting to tease out what works and what<br>> doesn't, determining early on whether or not the propose approach is sound.<br>> Assuming that the demand (and projected demand) is there, and that the<br>> group and engineering as a whole felt the approach taken by the ASG to be<br>> successful, the group would grow after two quarters.<br>><br><br>Sure, but I don't consider an entirely new team with three people - one of<br>whom has the job of...supervising the others? What exactly does the head<br>do? - to be an 'alpha phase'. 3 FTEs is a lot of money, and a lot of time:<br>I've been involved in hiring processes, and it sucks your life away to do<br>it for one role, let alone three. You're proposing tentative expansion that<br>starts with a six-figure down payment and the institution of a new<br>structured entity within the department, and its associated processes. That<br>never works out as an alpha phase in practise ;p.<br><br>You're budgeting for five, of whom four will actually be available, as I'm<br>reading the plans. Budget for two, hire one, hire the second as and when it<br>becomes necessary, not on a quarterly basis, and argue for expansion once<br>you can demonstrate that the work is needed, not just wanted.<br><br><br>> --<br>> Arthur Richards<br>> Software Engineer, Mobile<br>> [[User:Awjrichards]]<br>> IRC: awjr<br>> +1-415-839-6885 x6687<br>><br><br><br><br>-- <br>Oliver Keyes<br>Product Analyst<br>Wikimedia Foundation<br>-------------- next part --------------<br>An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/teampractices/attachments/20140303/b98d99eb/attachment.html><br><br>------------------------------<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>teampractices mailing list<br>teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org<br>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices<br><br><br>End of teampractices Digest, Vol 7, Issue 2<br>*******************************************<br></div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>