Sprint retrospective meeting #2 (2015-12-04)

Below you find the notes of our sprint retrospective (copied from the live pad). The sprint retrospective takes place at the end of each scrum sprint and
helps the team to reflect on the process and develop action items to
improve the process.

It was nice to see some of you joining the pad as observers! You are welcome to provide your comments on this thread, as well as proposing new stories on our taiga backlog (for access to post please ask here and I’ll invite you there)

Please remember that we are meeting again on Sunday and Tuesday, open to everyone willing to join/contribute to the team work in the following 2 weeks.

TransforMap Sprint Retrospective Meeting #2

Date: 2015-12-04 – 11:00-13:00
Participating: Michael M, Gualter, Josef, Adrien, Jon

Sprint info

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

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

  • Sprint planning meetings were the best thing in the last sprint - to get a plan, fill the taskboard, they were also “fun” - the whole team seconds that
  • Work with Alessa (SSEDAS) was good regarding the terms and reference, definition of responsibilities
  • after the call yesterday, technical alignment internal, and in exchange with the outside seem promising, and got much more clarity
  • much more information is now flowing into discourse in this month, in feedback and engagement, especially in technical areas
  • more regularity with the scrum standups
  • the community is actively engaging and requesting to be involved. That is a positive thing, as before we got the impression, that there is just little interest.
  • 10 new users. 40+ new topics, -89% reduction on non-answered posts. - see https://discourse.transformap.co/admin
  • Thomas Kalka started to engage again, which I (Josef) feel really happy about
  • more developers actively engage
  • taiga taskboard and updating it was very liquid, allowed for promenade/walk (rather than sprint!), work along, retrospectively updating the taskboard, but not actively working from there

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

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

  1. Performance very low, Michael only finished 20% - 10 days ill, big personal changes in life, distracted by Discourse topics. +
  2. No clarity/alignment on what are the current priorities, makes it difficult to communicate; also, how to explain that we are not a “centralizing” group, when we are focused on getting POIs to OSM? - made it impossible to establish a communication group, Adrien had to look rather for contacting people + + + +
  3. Lack of translation of technical terms/visions for people outside the scrum group + + + + -
  4. Not convinced about how workable (in a decentralized way) storing geodata directly into OSM is. In particular, regarding the vision of TransforMap and the effort involved in importing large datasets of POIs there +
  5. This is linked to unclarity on the way we articulate projects like SSEDAS, fundings like CHEST and general needs of the communities are a crucial point which do (did?) not align with this sprint + + +
  6. there is a problem in alignment, in particular in alignment, what should come first, what the final product should look like. The discussion around vision does not align to the workplan of the sprint, which even did not advance too much. + + + +
  7. there is 2 allignments missing, about vision, and about how we work as spint, with unclarity how far the sprint workflow is enabling deviation from the plan, and enabling of general community allignment +
  8. there is a permanent conflict between delivering for SSEDAS and establishing priorities, what the SSEDAS partners are demanding, and what is an already accepted vision within the whole of transformap +++++
  9. members in the team actively engage against each other in statements + +
  10. the biggest blocker in the team is, that we take… ???
  11. the pressure, that came from SSEDAS took our focus away from the open stories + + +
  12. the feeling, they come together already, but there was the feeling, that would go faster +
  13. we started to react a lot, instead of focussing on developing +
  14. the sprint is designed to help us focus, and protect us from outside pressing issues. We were not good at that. + + + + +
  15. very worried about the way project management is being done, regarding commitments/necessary resources to funded projects + +
  16. “the dictatorship of the early wakers” - all meetings (scrum standups at 12:00) are so early in the morning for Jon - -
    (some people here do have family, children, etc. - commitments to wake early, go to bed early! - and they are the more “vulnerable” group; 12 AM is already VERY late and actually a compromise :))
  17. problem in alignment, particularly in alignment ; different velocities going on, meaning that often fear gets created out of a lack of knowledge: those who don’t know how it will happen, fear that it won’t happen if it’s not documented; + + + +
  18. lots of noise, unmeaningful communication, a lot of buzz for nothing, instead of constant and calmly working on: the technology, bridging the different projects, communities, etc. + + +
  19. we don´t respect our internal division of labour, because nobody trusts each other, and because of that nothing gets finished + + + +
  20. as the CHEST project supports employment and experimentation with IT-technology, I (Jon) would care about making sure, that the people developing are supported instead of letting them craving in debt. + - +
  21. missing trust on other team members + + +
  22. communication about technical alignment was not happening nearly the whole sprint + + +
  23. no transparency/clarity/documentation about partial “monkey” meetings (others were not aware that there were tech meetings in Berlin and Lille by Jon and others in the community) ++
  24. “once I started something, I immediately got critique”, gave the idea “whatever I do I can’t do right, so better stop doing it” (Josef) + -
  25. didn’t feel like a team ++
  26. “that’s a Get Active project, not TransforMap” - gives the feeling of exclusion, separation ++ -
  27. very few people reacted to the governance meeting call + ++
  28. the mailing list is not yet working, which is a big blocker for the communication with the community + + ++
  29. lots of topics got started and restarted, and put from another perspecitve in the forum, but the content of the conversation in very many aspects is not more refined, than 1 year ago. The conversations are pointless, if they do not help produce clarity. + + +
  30. we are still incapable of taking decisions. We can talk about stuff, get some kind of alligned understanding, but there is no decision making that is solid, or at least “good enough for timeframe xy”+

What can we do to do better next time?

  1. The centralized/fully decentralize discussion needs to come to an end, with a dedicated statement, that has enough legitimation (decision) to be accepted by all participants (on which circle?). This would require to build upon existing documentation justifying current choices that can be used by the wider community answering questions, challenging, etc.

  2. Post (on discourse?) the ‘glossary of (technical) terms’’ started yesterday on the pad > https://text.allmende.io/p/2015-12-03_unsceduled_Monkey_mumble-meeting

  3. about issues: work on issues only on predefined times
    each person has dedicated times
    each person commits a percentage of their working time (5-25%) to issues
    avoid “emergency” requests to all the team/members of the team
    use the taiga issue tracker, consistently, team members will look there according to their own/agreed schedules for dealing with issues

  4. more documentation!

  5. separate concerns, and having defined roles (in projects and scrum teams?), and separate domains, so that not everyone is involved in every decision to be made.

  6. Try to shape stories in a way, so that they are involving several/complementary perspectives and stimulate pairing/small group talks to further work on it

  7. Draw clear guidelines around separating commons from commerce. See for a start: Separate Commons and Commerce to make it work for the Commons +

    1. Ask the Governance circle to prepare a process to provide clarity on what “TransforMap” does and especially how it relates to projects: are projects run by the individual members (persons, organizations), or by “TransforMap”, or else… what are the options, and how to decide about them? Calling the governance circle to meet
    • relates to discussion on separating commons and commerce
    • how should the projects engage with the community, and involve the community.
    • How is CHEST different than SSEDAS and how should the community be involved in each one
    • How is the mandate from the community to each individual project, and how far is a mandate needed, if the projects is dubbed a “TransforMap”-project
    • How, by whom and which process is a project legitimized to work for contributing to the commons
    • invite Simon to meet the governance circle meeting
    • reschedule/doodle a new governance circle call
      1. Systematically ask the communities about what they think of our technical plans and priorities in product delivery
    1. Adrien as a tech-non-tech translator: writing regular reports on what the “monkeys” are working on/going for (and he is keen on it!)
    • needs to be thought about communication channels, how to reach the communities
    • think the communication 2 ways and think about how to get/generate/integrate feedback from the communities
    • communicate, what the monkeys are doing and get feedback
    • generate community stories from the community (with acceptance criteria), so it matches
    • get more and more awareness of what the communiy needs to be technically produces
      Refine the communication of what the scrum work is, reshape language (e.g. peripathetic walk instead of sprint, community stories instead of user stories; community requirements instead of acceptance criteria)
  8. Continue putting energy in reactivating the circles and establishing proper workflows for decision making; rely on/reinforce past decisions/common understandings on the governance of Transformap (e.g. sociocracy)

  9. Fix the mailing lists (#174)

Have a timeplan on foreseeable events/themes/topics between January-June
- communication plan
- roadmap for the sprints
- a bigger arch for the sprints, a walk, where to orient the sprints
- avoid dates, maybe rather speak of “phases”
> also see slide 84/88 from http://coevolving.com/commons/20151002-service-systems-thinking-an-introduction (many more meaningful insights in the whole presentation)

Ideally visioned have a page, where there is cards with timeframes and with milestones.
We have a lot of documents and a lot of visulizations, but not one place, where we can get on overview on where and how we are currently moving.
have a kind of roadmap for the different iterations as an orientation, it should change, should be dynamic

have shorter sprints of 2 weeks to get more capacity to respond to incoming requests/changing priorities

  1. Josef and Gualter should clarify contracting aspects of SSEDAS and CHEST so that people can start getting paid for work they do

Have regular financial circle meeting

  • report on spendings
  • report on outcomes related to the spendings
  • define how the money can be enacted by the community, as well as by the people responsible for the delivery and administration attached to the fund
  • define how to take decisions in that circle
  • provide all relevant information to the community

Other notes

When Josef is in India (after next Thursday), it is difficult for him to join meetings, that start later than 14:00, as there is 4 1/2 hours time difference, and to stick to a day-schedule is important there for him.

Next meetings: Sunday 10-13 (backlog grooming, building stories), Tuesday 10-13 (sprint planning meeting)

Michael is available on Sunday and Tuesday
Adrien is available on Tuesday
Josef is available on Tuesday
Gualter is there on Sunday and Tuesday
Jon can be there both days
Kei is joining on Tuesday

A post was merged into an existing topic: Scrum sprint retrospectives