yellow team mailing list archive

[Gary Poster <gary.poster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Francis and Robert.

As you know, I've been sending out weekly retrospective emails every
Friday.  These include a "project status" section, and include the
discussions and analysis we have of success and problems we had in the
past week.

I've also been sending out biweekly emails.  These include summaries,
bugs closed, tracked bugs, and goals for the next two weeks.

I'm writing you for two reasons, both in relation to the biweekly emails.

First, those biweekly emails seem very similar to parts of the
retrospective emails, and I wonder if we can reduce some duplication.

Second, those biweekly emails were supposed to be the meeting
preparation for actual calls.  Those calls fell off the calendar for
some reason that I don't know right now.  I asked you two on 5/16 to
propose another meeting time or give me some other direction on what to
do and, to my memory and record, didn't get a reply.  To be honest, that
suited me fine.  Given the preparation I was providing, I felt the
meeting could have been handled more efficiently via email.  I think we
should all face up to this situation, though, and make a conscious
decision about what to do about it.

I'll offer some observations and a proposal to start the conversation
off.  I am scheduled to prepare a biweekly status email for this
Wednesday.  Therefore, it would be convenient, though not necessary, if
we came to a resolution before then.

I ask everyone, including yellow squad folks, to weigh in if you have
something to add.

Observations:

 * The biweekly email's summary is essentially duplicated by the
retrospective's project status.  I don't think the biweekly summary adds
sufficient additional value.

 * The biweekly email's "bugs closed" list is nice as a statement of
accomplishment and a review of what each of us in the squad have done in
the past couple of weeks.  The kanban board does the same on a daily
basis.  The only difference is that we aggregate two weeks and celebrate
it in the biweekly email, and we call it to the attention of Robert,
Francis, and whoever else reads.  I'm not confident that the additional
value is commensurate with the cost, even though the cost is relatively
small.

 * The biweekly email's collection of the status of tracking bugs is
nice as a statement of things we might need help on.  However, the
kanban board keeps track of this, and Francis and I have a chance to
review any blocking problems every Tuesday.  Again, I question the
additional value of aggregating the data for the biweekly email.

 * The biweekly email's statement of goals is the only truly unique
aspect of the email, to my evaluation.  It has not been incredibly
valuable of late, but I think it still should be kept, because it has
been valuable in the past to clarify expectations between ourselves, our
manager (Francis), and our customer (Robert).

 * The biweekly call, when we had it, to me felt unnecessary, given the
preparation I had done.  If everyone read the email/document I had
prepared, it could have been much, much shorter, and perhaps we could
have had it only if someone wanted to discuss something after reading
the email.

>From those observations, I will make two alternate proposals.

Gary's option 1:

I no longer prepare biweekly emails.  I include proposed project goals
in the weekly retrospective minutes that I produce Friday or Monday.
Everyone in this group reads them, and we have a standing *available*
time on alternate Tuesdays (New Zealand/Australia Wednesday) to have a
call if anyone requests clarification or discussion.  By default *we do
not have the call*.  If we have the call, the agenda is set by the
person or people who requested the call.

Gary's option 2:

As above, except the default is we *do* have the call.  To cancel it,
Robert, Francis and Gary have to check in with one another and agree
that the call is unnecessary.  If we do have the call, the agenda should
be set dynamically, and should generally not include reviewing the
retrospective email.

Observations? Votes?  Alternate proposals?

Thanks

Gary