Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Retrospective #69

Open
iteles opened this issue Nov 3, 2017 · 3 comments
Open

Retrospective #69

iteles opened this issue Nov 3, 2017 · 3 comments

Comments

@iteles
Copy link
Member

iteles commented Nov 3, 2017

What went well:

  • Really enjoyed sprint planning session, having milestones and a plan - direction is key
  • QA was very good (thanks @katbow), verbose style helped learn new things or even just different ways of doing things
    • Asking questions on why things were done rather than specifically saying ‘this is wrong’ was great as sometimes things were done in an unusual way for a reason
  • Really enjoyed using pre-commit module for 100% test coverage. Doing tests as we go along rather than having to spend 2 days at the end doing them was much better
    • Also very enjoyable to use a module you wrote yourself
  • Generally good team vibes
  • Having acceptance criteria was very helpful in understanding what is the minimum we can do to fulfil that criteria and create the first iteration
  • Generally we know we prefer more pairing so will look to continue to have a good balance of pairing (especially on more complex features) and individual work for future sprints

Things to be improved

  • Would have been good to do the sprint planning before anything started (there were two days of research and planning before @iteles was in the country and available to do the planning)
  • Having the bullet points in the readme turned into user stories with acceptance criteria earlier would have been helpful, this level of clarity made a difference and made things more tangeable
  • More consistency of timing of standup (@iteles was travelling for two of the days so this had to be move) - allows you to architect your day (and if something you've planned for doesn't happen, it leaves you feeling unproductive)
  • More time for a build overall, felt a bit rushed - could have been partially resolved by more accurate time estimates and a buffer for bugs, which would have led to a smaller sprint scope
  • Clarity on whether times estimates are paired or individual and what happens if we do something individually that has a paired estimate
@iteles
Copy link
Member Author

iteles commented Nov 4, 2017

@finnhodgkin @ZooeyMiller Good morning friends! Could you please have a quick read of the above and ensure I've captured our retrospective from yesterday accurately?

Thank you!

@iteles iteles assigned ZooeyMiller and finnhodgkin and unassigned iteles Nov 4, 2017
@finnhodgkin
Copy link
Contributor

Looks like everything we covered 👍

Definitely worth repeating how nice it was working with you all @iteles, @katbow and @ZooeyMiller ❤️.

@finnhodgkin finnhodgkin removed their assignment Nov 4, 2017
@ZooeyMiller
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good to me! Sorry I've taken so long to get to this, but agreed with @finnhodgkin, was great to work with you all.

@ZooeyMiller ZooeyMiller removed their assignment Nov 13, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants