And here's a "stop, laugh, relax" break email:
https://media1.giphy.com/media/u75DtEmmyS0fK/200.gif
https://media0.giphy.com/media/sYHOVHt74OWas/200.gif
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez < jhernandez@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Regarding Jon's caveats (responses inline):
- Anyone can edit the priority field. I don't know of any cases of
someone switching from some kind of priority to 'needs triage' ever happens though so this shouldn't be a problem.
That's true for everything we do because everything is public. Most intervention I see from external stakeholders is commenting, adding related projects and occasionally editing description and title (which of those, the edit is usually good).
The good things we get by making priority field a part of our workflow are:
- Phab integration: Querys, batch edits, colors on cards.
- Integration with the rest of the organization (which to my
understanding use priorities heavily).
- Any changes by anybody are logged in the task. You can see who did
what.
All these are things we don't have with *only columns and sorting columns*. Well we get column changes logged in the task, but we don't get *sort order* changes logged in the card, which is what worries me the most.
Anybody can change the sort order of the columns and nothing is logged. There is no way to see if a task was not important but it is now. Or the reverse.
To me *only* relying in column sort order is just damaging to our process. A combo of priority and column sort would seem ideal to me.
- Some tasks may get lost when they are not filed against an extension.
eg. Adding a card in a sprint but not with the associated extension https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/gdeZ0Re2Ekmh/#R OR Tasks in reading web but not in the extension pages https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/BuWVMgcwb1kM/#R (but I think we can train ourselves to avoid that)
If I'm correct this is a problem we already have, and we don't have a clear workflow for it.
My proposal is having clear rules of where tasks are (in the software project they belong) and stay vigilant in just *current sprint* and *overview board* to move to needs triage+software project any tasks that pop in there.
In any case with, what we are doing now, we should probably set strict rules about what get's added into the sprint and where to report bugs, since we don't have any agreement now.
Keep your minds open, I'm not actually proposing any huge changes, and these "flows" should bring us closer to how the rest of the organization works (if I'm not totally mistaken).
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez < jhernandez@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I thought we had come to a different conclusion: that we would continue
with the existing system for a sprint cycle for you to see how the system works before you change it. Maybe I am misunderstanding.
I said *considering adopting* and no dates, which is compatible with what we talked about [image: 😄].
If I'm not misunderstanding, please remember Kristen is a stakeholder on this and it impacts how she does her job, so any changes really do need her buy-in.
I've contacted KL and asked her for further thoughts, so that we can keep the conversation rolling. She's always on my mind [image: 😜]
Seriously though, there aren't any super-radical changes or anything crazy. Just clearly stablishing the workflow and trying to do our jobs the best we can.
The biggest philosophical change would be having mobile's product backlog on mobile frontend and gather's product backlog on Gather, which we've already done in the past and worked fine.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Jon Robson jdlrobson@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Joaquin I'm still not 100% sure how the query will work for us but I'm all for trying this out.
A few caveats to be aware of:
- Anyone can edit the priority field. I don't know of any cases of
someone switching from some kind of priority to 'needs triage' ever happens though so this shouldn't be a problem.
- Some tasks may get lost when they are not filed against an extension.
eg. Adding a card in a sprint but not with the associated extension https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/gdeZ0Re2Ekmh/#R OR Tasks in reading web but not in the extension pages https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/query/BuWVMgcwb1kM/#R (but I think we can train ourselves to avoid that) I certainly do the former a lot, since I spend most of my time in the sprint board. Setting up herald rules [1] for each sprint board seems rather expensive and a pain but is one solution.
In terms of epics, on the reading web board, I'd love to see us use though's more often and use only the 'must have', 'could have', 'should have' for those tasks. Any subtasks I'd love to file them in a 'Sub task' column on the basis that it makes the board less noisy and keeps us focused. Any bugs should either be put in a sprint project or left on the extension (we can triage them separately there using the MobileFrontend workboard)
[1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Topic:Sh94hyx5vqslwf8n
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Bahodir Mansurov bmansurov@wikimedia.org wrote:
It looks good to me. Thanks for the hard work, Joaquin.
On Jun 30, 2015, at 2:56 PM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez jhernandez@wikimedia.org wrote:
Any feedback folks?
I've been talking to the tech lead and we're considering adopting this
and
adapting as we go along for improvements we could make.
Cheers
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Bahodir Mansurov <
bmansurov@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
On Jun 29, 2015, at 8:34 AM, Joaquin Oltra Hernandez jhernandez@wikimedia.org wrote:
I've mapped the proposed workflow: https://i.imgur.com/Wu7crcB.png
TLDR ^
Mobile-l mailing list Mobile-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l
-- Jon Robson
