There are pros and cons to each, but at the moment I am leaning toward option (b). However, the answer to that question could involve rethinking how our Discovery product board is organized, which also relates to the rethinking we are doing about our standups, which has gotten me thinking more about how the department itself is structured. It's a big topic(s).c. Each goal is a task[3] blocked by other tasks that are in service of that goal[4]b. Each goal is a column in a board (not a sprint board, but a high-level board)[2]a. Each goal is a project[1]For point #2, I believe there are three approaches already being used within the foundation to track quarterly goals in phabricator:For point #1, the tradeoff is visibility vs. clutter. Unfortunately, phabricator boards become increasingly awkward as you add more columns. So each column has to be valuable enough to justify the space it is taking up.2. Should we use epics to track quarterly goals?Within Team Practices, we have been having discussions about how to map quarterly goals into phabricator. So I would like to split this into two questions:1. Should we have an epics column in the Analysis (and other) sprint board?
I'm definitely willing to try having an Epics column, and later deciding whether or not to keep it.[1] Example: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/rd-2016q2/[2] VE does something along these lines[3] Whether this "task" is an "epic" or a "saga" or something else is open for discussion. Technically, to phab, it's just a task.[4] My understanding is that FR Tech uses this approach
Kevin Smith
Agile Coach, Wikimedia FoundationOn Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Keyes <okeyes@wikimedia.org> wrote:Hey all,
Earlier this week at our stand-up I mentioned my concern that although
we were now in the second quarter, our work did not entirely reflect
that; it was hard to point at cards and say "yes, this impacts our
quarterly goals".
At our sprint planning meeting I had the idea of adding a new column
to our sprint board - one for epics. Quarterly goals are epics (or
should be), and so exist in a form that Phabricator can track. By
including them in our sprint board we force ourselves, each planning
meeting or checkin, to pass over those epics and explain whether we've
been working on them or not and why, which results in informed task
prioritisation.
As an example, if we have an epic called "reduce the zero results
rate", and in our sprint planning meeting none of the cards we're
signing off on relate to it, we can prioritise cards that do when
we're pulling stuff out of the backlog.
People seemed to think this was a pretty good idea, but Dan wasn't in
the meeting, so I thought I'd push this to a venue he is in and do so
in a way that is transparent - in case anyone else has suggestions or
concerns or thinks it's something they'd like, too.
Thanks,
--
Oliver Keyes
Count Logula
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery
_______________________________________________
discovery mailing list
discovery@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/discovery