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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Wes Moran
<wmoran(a)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