Add policy and description of the retrospective meeting for engineering #862
Conversation
|
Test failure is due to secrets not being available to PRs from forks |
|
@sgibson91 I've added some clarifications. Thanks for creating the first draft! |
|
@haroldcampbell I disagree with your move towards engineers filling in the retrospective board during the meeting instead of before. It is really costly to get such a distributed team together on the same call and, therefore, we should maximise the time in that call for activity that is better served by synchronicity, i.e. discussions and talking to one another. Not "dead air" as we all quietly write things down by ourselves. UPDATE: With a smaller, Euro-centric team for retrospectives, I feel less strongly about this. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Once review comments has been considered, I think we should go with this as an initial improvement!
Thank you for working this @sgibson91!!
|
FYI, I cannot approve my own PR 😄 |
I added some changes and clarifications
Co-authored-by: Angus Hollands <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erik Sundell <[email protected]>
Fixed formatting of {guilabel}
Emphasise ownership! Co-authored-by: Angus Hollands <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Erik Sundell <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Sarah Gibson <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Angus Hollands <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Angus Hollands <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Erik Sundell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Erik Sundell <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Sarah Gibson <[email protected]>
consideRatio
force-pushed
the
eng-retro-policy
branch
from
399c8f1 to
f0be380
Compare
|
I've iterated a bit on this:
I think we should just go for a merge - if additional work is proposed as part of this i think we should do another iteration in a fresh PR with less resolved comments etc. |
|
Test failure seemed unrelated, so I also ignored it. |
I also opened #863 as a follow-up, which is more about structure than content.