Scrum sprint #1 Autumn 2015 retrospective

Scrum sprint Autumn#1 retrospective

Meeting date: 2015-11-02
Sprint dates: 09 Sep 2015-26 Oct 2015
Team: @alabaeye, @almereyda, @gandhiano, @josefkreitmayer, @species

Sprint Taskboard

What went well / was nice and fun in the last sprint?

  • regular meetings was good
    2 standup meetings per week (people did not attend all the time, and sometimes it did not happen, but most of the times it went really well)
    3 technical meetings (monkey meetings)
  • Solikon Workshop was really good
    participatory process
    especially how people were involved in engaging with their ressources and ideas
    they were there and became part of the project with their feelings
    Mariana and Simon are still willing and engaged to cooperate
  • technical drawings of Michael and how they improved them
  • strengthening international cooperation by envolving different partners with us and with other partners (e.g. Mariana and Value-Flows)
  • meetings created a common flow
  • we also did non-sprint-related things, the sprint did not block us in doing good and important other things for TransforMap, that were not in the sprint.
  • (Chest Contract was signed) (was not in the sprint, but is good)
  • Terms of Reference with SSEDAS is on its way for evaluation with SSEDAS
  • SSEDAS got more and more clarity
  • it is good, that we do the retrospective of the first Sprint and planning meeting for the 2nd sprint as a physical meeting
  • the Taiga Sprint Taskboard was useful to track progress
  • Gualter really liked the first 2 weeks of the scrum as very productive
  • Jon likes the iteration of the discourse categories. He got positive feedback, that is very comprehensive for an outsider coming in the first time
  • the easy structure of the standups was easy to understand, very timesaving, clear and helpful
  • the documentation of the standup meeting was clear, worked well and is documented even for absent members
  • the skype conversation documentation with Inkota and Josef is well documented and (due to request from Inkota) open for internal use
  • most of the time people behaved very constructive and cooperative to develop clarities in the various areas of discourse

##What did not work so well / What could or should be better?

Note: The + and - reflect the agreement and importance given by other team members to the issues raised

  1. it was not clear how to integrate things to do in the sprint, that were important to do, but did not be agreed upon in the sprint planning meeting +++
  2. quite many of the tasks were not really started, or abandoned half way, and it was never commented or adressed in any way to move them forward to be finished at the end of the sprint ++++
  3. The crisis was just semi-adressed and the learnings are not yet manifest in an obvious way + -
  4. Silke took a definite step back from the project, and is currently just in the periphery with the option to step back in the core of the project at a later stage - - - (not a problem of this sprint, but resulting in a bigger context)
  5. the roadmap has still very many unclarities and the technical specifications, architectural decisions are still very unclear + + + +
  6. The team still does not feel like being a whole, but scattered individuals working together
  7. roles are not clear +++
  8. alignments still felt weak in several occasions.
  9. There sometimes is a feeling, that the whole project / projects / ecosystem is in question and not addressed constructively - - ++
  10. meeting attendance was bad +++ -
  11. sprint was too long ++++
  12. I think mixing tech and governance tasks distracts from goals ++ –
  13. Dispersion after second week of sprint and lack of focus on the sprint +++
  14. TransforMap vision & roadmap discussions were only obscuring the epistemological differences (different perceptions and set of rules / intellectual frameworks, how we understand the world - between us) in working with collective initiatives ++
  15. Decision making on how to spend the grants unclear and intransparent +++ -
  16. contracting between ecobytes and get active did not work good, because it is now delayed by a month ++ -
  17. CHEST and SSEDAS are not sufficiently documented yet +++
  18. there is almost noone left in TransforMap despite us ----
  19. technical discussions could not move at high pace due to radical integration of non-technicians (actually it needs different types of meeting, about discussing topics and making decisions) ±
  20. It did not work to stick to the sprint, as an organizational entity for following the tasks related to it / Taiga task have not been updated ++++
  21. gender balance in the scrum-team is mainly male identified ++++
  22. lack of motivation to contribute in the aftermath of the crisis and conflicts in general +++

What can we do to do better next time?

Note: the numbers are associations of the actions with the issues/problems mentioned on the previous question.

  • 1 Use Taiga-Issues for items, that pop up during the sprint
  • 1 We should try documenting and re-evaluating non-sprint related tasks in Taiga.
  • 2 Use needs info column if its clearly described
  • 2 Look at the Taiga board during standups.
  • 2 Use Iocaine or Blocked to visualize
  • 5 Architectural planning meeting needed
  • 5 Finishing the road map user story with proper communication and relation to the community as a pile for governance
  • Present architectural side and capacity
  • 7 Define clear (Scrum) roles for each of the projects (CHEST, at least SSEDAS) and ‘TransforMap’ (Commons, Circles)
  • we define expectations towards each role
  • define areas and topics of responsibility and authority for each role and circle
  • define how roles and circles relate to each other
  • 11 Have four weeks of Scrum sprint
  • 11 + 2 Trimmed and smaller stories, as huge ones blocked us. Also reduce effort points per sprint/week.
  • 11 Have sprint review meeting after 2 weeks / in the middle of the sprint
  • 14 We should have an international Roadmap meeting.
  • 14 + 19 Establish a technical consultation procedure (Have a pool/group of people in the community or network that act as a circle (external { technical && governance }) advisors and meet regularily) [ in-/formal, but documented and public contribution { < financial contribution? to buy their knowledge / pay for their effort} ]
  • 15 Public meeting of the Funding circle.
  • 15 A monetary spreadsheet allows clarity on budget and clarity on unclarities about budget.
  • 16 Finalize CHEST contracting between Get Active and Ecobytes to issue preliminary reimbursements for Michael and Jon
  • 17 Document important steps, milestones, documents, conversations et al. of interaction with contract partners
  • In CHEST we are contractor; client is European Comission > consider to ask taxonomy circle how to call economic relations internally for us non-specialists alternative economies
  • 21 Have conversation with Kei about possible contracting opportunities
  • 21 Consider integrating Karissa, Lynn and Mariana futher. Find out about their agenda, what would be their (and others’) availability for contributing. Karissa also has a contact to a UX person who could come for 3 months, i.e.
  • And make a good practice from the learning/documenting of this integration process.
  • 10 + 19 Monkey meetings get more regular and structured with clear definition for roles,
  • i.e. note taker, time keeper, host/moderator, regular reflection on how the meetings are for they have more clear outcomes.
  • “small with last Scrum retrospective question”
  • scrum standup questions can be really helpful
  • 10 Monkey circle is responsible for preparing and taking choices
  • legitimation is given from the larger community
  • 1 7 15 16 18 circle descriptions can be helpful for clarifying what to decide and where. (Governance-Circle issue)
  • Ask the governance circle to define roles about legitimacy:
  • role and circle definition gets a clear process
  • clarity in that area is produced, on where to aks others, and where to proceed on your own
  • ask forgiveness better than permission in some times (and/but learn from the transparent documentation)
  • each circle has a status-wiki-page (what is going on, what is the contact points, or general stable understandings of the cirlce)
  • Actively ask for comments
  • 12 (Seperate) Optimize the tech and governance linking
  • Demand from Monkey circle to see the g. circle running
  • Contact persons which bridge between circles
  • 5, 6, 7, 8 Gualter until the end of the next sprint (from Nov 2 - Dec 2 ~) takes the role of calling the governance circle
  • Gualter takes the issues, that are identified to be for the governance-circle, and makes them transparent in a way, he sees appropriate to the people that follow the invitiation to the governance meetings
  • Gualter also adresses, the idea of producing project blueprints
  • 17 14 15 Clarify what is actually SSEDAS and what is CHEST, so understand each project itself, before combining them. to combine them only afterwards more compellingly
  • tomorrow:
  • stable list of deliverables
  • relative allocation of resources
  • scaling SSEDAS and CHEST to relate their GANTT sizes to each other => prototypes are more important than the products.
  • don t think of SSEDAS and CHEST as isolated processes
  • 14 learn from the development of how collective action formed itself in the last 30 or 40 years, find a way to express which expectations exist concerning habits of collective initiatives.
  • 5, 7, 8, create a project blueprint: (express expectations about how projects should be run: communication (visual), language, documentation)
  • 3 define boundaries of people and groups, and their access (trust) levels, to create a safe space, or several safe spaces, where informaton can be actively and securely communcated
  • 2 20 trim down epics (Scrum tactics)
  • 8 15 prepare topics to be discussed, but not decided (escalation methods)
  • 3 decisions to be made should be transparent
  • 10 meetings get clear and repetitive dates
  • 4 Josef and Adrien are independently talking to Silke
  • to ask her about how she currently sees TransforMap, feels about it, and thinks of engaging again at any point in time of her decision. There is also a question about the CHEST funds and it´s budgeting involved.
  • 22 leave sprint planning meeting with trust in our experience
  • feeling of ownership of the process and its outcomes
  • money has ambiguous influence