yellow team mailing list archive

["Francis J. Lacoste" <francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 12-06-25 11:00 AM, Gary Poster wrote:
> Hi Francis and Robert.
[...]

> 
> 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.
> 

Agreed.

>  * 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.

I don't think the "bugs closed" list is that useful. It's on the verge
of too-much-information. I agree that the Kanban board is enough.
> 
>  * 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.

Same here.
> 
>  * 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).

I do think this is worth keeping (and adding to your weekly
retrospective as you suggest).

> 
>  * 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.

Agreed

> 
> 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.


I think this is the best option.


> 
> 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?
> 


Cheers

-- 
Francis J. Lacoste
francis.lacoste@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature