Community Tech/Retrospectives/2015-09-15
Appearance
This page is obsolete. It is being retained for archival purposes. It may document extensions or features that are obsolete and/or no longer supported. Do not rely on the information here being up-to-date. Please see the Community Tech page on meta for up to date information |
Action items from last time
[edit]- Standups (chickens and pigs)
- Johan listens, and then might share info at the end (seems to be working)
- CL communication as part of workshops?
- Maybe a topic for next week's workshop?
- Backlog ran empty
- Not a problem now. Big backlog.
- Find way to have more communications outside of the standups (one-on-ones)
- Scheduled weekly 1:1's
- Timeboxing spikes: Worked well, or didn't?
- Hard to timebox due to external dependencies
- Process for dealing with unfinished work from previous sprint
- Rolled over outstanding work into next sprint
- Communications w/Editing (and other) teams
- No action other than creating a goal for next Q to write up and share with teams
- Would like clear process and expectations
What has gone well?
[edit]- Meetings seem to fit in time slots OK with current practices
- Bryan Davis was very helpful on untangling some of the bot code
- Consulting with community on talk page about what to do on the bot was helpful
- Phabricator's still working pretty well
- Estimations/prioritizations went much more smoothly+1
- Hatjitsu was useful
- Development work has gone well.
- Was able to work independently because of the nature of database-reports task
- There were fruitful communications with MZ and Lego on IRC
- Spliting the Phab boards seem to be OK so far (easier to see what's going on)
- Meeting with Niharika seems to have been really useful for both of us in the last two weeks+1
- Getting access to old tool code has been easier than I expected (although maybe there were exceptions?)
What could have gone better?
[edit]- Working with community legacy code: super frustrating and hard to keep momentum going
- Specific engineering maneger/support when Ryan was gone would have been useful
- Could use more review/feedback+
+* Didn't actually complete a lot of work (although some tasks were in review/clean-up) +* Work could have been faster if lesser time was spent on trying to fix legacy code and not just do it all over
- More interaction with the community would have been better for fixing the database reports
- Satisfaction survey is behind schedule due to a couple issues and lack of time
- The extension itself was all right but I could've used more support/structure during it
- We need a PM. I think I need more of Ryan's time but there isn't that much of it.
- Niharika and Frances both ran into poorly documented and therefore confusing code (though Martin's been good at answering questions for the bot)
- Much time was wasted trying to fix legacy code without documentation.
What else is on your mind?
[edit]- Need to gear up for wishlist survey
- One week sprint extension, good? bad? discuss.
- How do we do code review in GitHub?
Deeper discussions
[edit]- Working with community legacy code: super frustrating and hard to keep momentum going
- Dispiriting to spend a lot of time and not necessariy have a lot of results
- Would be fun as an academic exercise, but not with task of making real changes
- Lack of documentation. Original maintainers not helpful.
- "Was faster to write it myself"
- Lego has been helpful; maybe other people with broad knowledge could help
- In some cases, consider rewriting from scratch--might be more efficient
- End goal is to have working, maintainable code
- Expectations: If not realistic, frustration is natural
- After wishlist survey, might have more new code and less legacy
- Ties into need for PM (or more availabilty of Ryan as mgmt) (Ryan is continuing to push on this issue)
- Need to gear up for wishlist survey
- Roadmap has survey going by end of month, which is really soon
- Mostly Ryan
- Needs guidance regarding translations; needs CL support (more than Johan)
- Will need to translate actual proposals (talking with Siko)
- Want to recruit volunteers to help moderate the survey process
- Polishing draft process (will float this week)
- Niharika has some related experience so maybe could help; Frances willing to help think things through
- How do we do code review in GitHub?
- Wants to leave feedback, but no clean UI to leave notes
- Apparently github does have line-by-line commenting; Frances has the knowledge
Retro of retro
[edit]- Train delays shortened the meeting!
- Didn't get to talk about everything (maybe that's OK?)
- Would've liked more time for discussing issues raised
- 2 weeks?
- Seems right (3 is too long)
- Maybe make next one longer if not everything got talked about
- Have team enter items in etherpad ahead of time?
- Rarely seems to work
- Reviewing action items at start?
- Useful
- Hopefully fewer of them in the future
Action Items (pulled out after the meeting ended)
[edit]- Working with community legacy code: super frustrating and hard to keep momentum going
- Specific engineering manager/support when Ryan was gone would have been useful
- Could use more review/feedback
- More interaction with the community would have been better for fixing the database reports