Yes, that does remain one of the responsibilities of the sprint planning manager.
It’s implicit, but the sprint planning manager should monitor the checklists to ensure that all cell members are doing their role in planning the sprint. It helps identify where problems are happening in the sprint planning process of a specific cell.
After all, the sprint planning manager’s role isn’t to do the sprint planning, but to ensure that members are able to fulfill their responsibilities towards planning their next sprint.
It’s also easy to do, a sprint planning manager can setup their own Dashboard using Tutorial: Utilizing Dashboards for Sprint Planning Checklists in Monday.com.
I’ve, personally, created three to monitor the use of the checklists in all cells:
I’ll try to be clear in my next announcement about the sprint planning checklist changes regarding the role of that ticket.
Yes! I created a reminder for creating a ticket to look into these elements next sprint
I’m not sure, as well, to be honest.
The only roles that remain are: Sprint Planning Manager, Sprint Manager, Recruitment Manager, and DevOps Specialist.
I think we can reduce them to 3 roles per cell by merging Sprint Planning Manager and Sprint Manager, if members are interested in further reducing the number of roles…
That’s a pretty low number of roles in comparison to the number of members in a single cell.
The forum mod and the OSPR Liaison will both be removed since they will be included in the Developer Advocate role. They already are included, now, under the Community Liaison role.
I’ll reach out on those tickets to ask them to re-assign them to me starting next sprint.
I raised this point, so we can dedicate major effort towards that proposal. Based on @adolfo’s latest sprint update, that’s the case. So I am no longer worried about that point, because @adolfo will be focused on that proposal during this sprint, I suppose.
During the meantime, finding more newcomers and the trial project will definitely help in that direction.
So please disregard my comment, since it’s no longer applicable based on the latest updates. Apologies for that inconvenience by the way!
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c7537/c753781ec0f92e10b133ed30c1440b0fc5305570" alt=""
Also note that the idea is to help with relieving pressure from cell roles, not take them all on. Here too, the long term solution is to recover capacity, and have more people able & willing to take on roles - a role one person doesn’t like (or doesn’t like anymore) might be one someone else will like. But yes, we’ll need to check that, between those two solutions, at the end we’re all happy with our respective roles.
The long term solution definitely will help, I see a lot of effort done towards recovering capacity, and huge kudos to the team for that.
I understand that the cell supporter wouldn’t be picking up all the work, I’m just slightly concerned that the cell supporter might face burn-out and/or not all members who want to pass-on their cell roles will have the chance to.
If it’s alright, would it be possible to have all members, including non-cell ones, submit the bi-weekly-checkup? It would help alleviate those concerns because it would allow us to identify any slight burn-out.