Versions Compared

Old Version 7

changes.mady.by.user Dana Balser

Saved on

compared with

New Version Current

changes.mady.by.user Mark Whitehead

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Attendance:

Agenda:

  • Cancel backlog meeting Monday?
    • Mark will check with team and cancel if agreed.
  • Is the Author List part of Proposal or Proposal Copy
    • Agree author list is part of proposal.
    • Consider moving the author interface to another tab and different language ("Add to Proposal" ?) to indicate that this is effective immediately rather than requiring submission.
    • Suggest if a proposal is in any state other than draft or hidden the title displayed on the summary should be the one from the observatory copy.
  • Chair Vetting
    1. Chair Vetting Stage. (Rejected)
    2. Allow SRP Changes. (Deferred requirement - STT-1053)
    3. Add Review from another SRP. (Already Included)
  • Dual Anonymous - discussion on adding another phase in the SRP, after consensus, that would make the team expertise section/ cover page available to the SRP and they could some feedback on team expertise (STScI, Sophia models) Not in the requirements as no official DARP policy exists to trigger the requirement.
  • Feedback on Sprint Reviews (Mark F.)
    • Scrum is about delivering value to product owners. So stories should be structured such that the team can demonstrate increments of value in sprint reviews which, in the case of TTAT, generally means GUI demos. If an epic is in an intermediate state where the team isn't ready to demo an increment of value then I don't think we should be spending time in the sprint review on it. I mean that in the sense that while it's great that some database thing is working, seeing that doesn't help the PO decide that a story related to some requirement is done which is the primary intent of the sprint review.


Open Actions:

Task report
pages68321335