In the interest of keeping things moving forward, I have come up with a new proposal that takes all the input so far into consideration. You can see it as part of the larger "process" proposal, which I will announce in a separate email (so it doesn't get buried).
If anyone wants to continue this discussion here as well, then by all means please do so.
Thanks,
Kevin Smith Agile Coach Wikimedia Foundation
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Help us make it a reality.
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Kevin Smith ksmith@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Wes Moran wmoran@wikimedia.org wrote:
Kevin wrote:
An alternative to the back-to-back would be to have a meeting every two weeks, and alternate between a showcase and a retrospective. Just a thought.
Well if the idea is they are both sprint related -- I like stacking them after the sprint as suggested by Nik
But we weren't planning to have sprints. At least, that has been my understanding. I thought we would just have rolling work, where each task gets done when it gets done.
Now, we could change that plan, and instead try having "non-commitment" iterations. Every 2 weeks (or 1 or 3), we could gather a subteam, and lay out the work we think/hope might get done in that iteration. However, unlike a true Scrum timeboxed sprint, the team would not be committing to that work. It would merely be a good faith best guess.
Advantages: Rhythm. Potential to measure velocity. Clear time point for demos and retrospectives. Moves us toward Scrum.
Disadvantages: Would require some level of task estimation. Might be demoralizing to not finish what was hoped. Forces the PO to predict 2 weeks at a time. Might combine the worst of Kanban with the worst of Scrum.
I'm especially interested to hear from developers on this one. It's a great, valid question.
Kevin