Hi @team , this is the beginning of a follow up epic to https://forum.opencraft.com/t/feedback-following-processes/1997/23 . The scope for this epic is to help bring reality and our written processes in line, by addressing blockers to following processes and updating processes where necessary. I’m not sure yet how much time budget we will have, but at this discovery stage it would be good to gather as much information as possible and then we can prioritise.
To start, I’ve put a braindump of thoughts on a new discovery doc and gathered some existing tickets that seem relevant into the epic.
To anyone interested, could I ask you take a few minutes to take a look at the braindump on the discovery doc and leave any comments: anything about our processes or reality that you find good or bad, pain points, anything you wish was easier, things you find confusing, etc.
Please do take a look; your feedback is valuable! Please also only take a few minutes; this is just the early braindump phase (identified areas can be discussed in depth in future sprints), and we have a 6h timebox this sprint for the discovery.
I’m hoping for a deadline of 2025-11-04 (Tuesday), as I’ll be back from holiday the day after and will aim to go through your comments asap.
About to go look-- but quick question here: Any reason this thread (and its predecessor) can’t be public? I don’t recall any reason why they shouldn’t be-- our continued work on our processes is something we usually do in the open.
Could we give this a bit more time, and have proper tickets scheduled into the sprints of everyone who is interested? Not everyone will have time to insert it into their sprint, and this could allow to have some time scheduled to look at it calmly?
I initially put this private because I wasn’t sure how sensitive this kind of feedback was. Happy to make it public if preferred. Perhaps we can leave the original feedback thread private, but make this and future ones public (the former was feedback that could be sensitive, while this is now general discussion around processes).
Ah yes, sorry, that’s an excellent idea. I’ll do that and update the thread.
Thanks everyone for your comments so far! I’ll try to respond as soon as possible now I’m back, and then I’ll go schedule something more formal.
I went back and looked and am pretty sure that the breadth we traveled in that thread is all within the scope of things we’ve normally made public. Not everything is the most flattering, to be sure, but we’ve handled some pretty serious topics in the open before, and the links to tickets all go to private pages, which is the only part I saw that was likely to be confidential in some way. Is there something in particular that was sensitive that you could comment on in the other thread so I can see it?
Thanks very much everyone for your early feedback! I’m iterating on the discovery to make it more polished, less of a braindump. It should be ready for another round of comments in a few days.
In order to give everyone more time to provide feedback on the updated discovery, could I ask anyone interested to create a ticket for themselves in the next sprint to review? Please put it in the processes revamp epic (BB-10142) and set approximately a 30min timebox.
Note that this is still in early feedback/comments stage. Once the discovery has reached a full proposal stage, I’ll ping everyone again for further review.
This question might not belong here, but it’s related to processes, so I thought I’d ask.
I think I may have been naming my epic updates incorrectly for years. I’ve been using the previous sprint’s name in the title (similar to how we do sprint update videos), rather than the current sprint’s name. Looking at other people’s updates, I’m starting to think this is wrong!
I couldn’t find a clear answer in the handbook, so could someone please confirm the correct approach?
I just went through the last iteration of the discovery document on this project, and I wanted to give you kudos for the work you are doing there @samuel - for bringing up the topic in the first place, but also for the very constructive and consensus-building way you have iterated over the discovery document. I’m looking forward to seeing the effects of the measures suggested there, it looks like it will be a great improvement and cleanup. Thanks! And to everyone who has chipped in feedback and ideas there.
@Fox@samuel Btw where are we in terms of making those discussions public?
