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

Estimates vs Actual Times for every issue in GitHub #375

Open
ghost opened this issue Aug 18, 2017 · 9 comments
Open

Estimates vs Actual Times for every issue in GitHub #375

ghost opened this issue Aug 18, 2017 · 9 comments
Labels
priority-2 Second highest priority, should be worked on as soon as the Priority-1 issues are finished

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Aug 18, 2017

Linked to #321

Estimates vs Actual Times for each task/issue on a project so we know if we are getting better at estimating.

@iteles can you please clarify the priority for this sub-issue of the epic? I'm not sure if this one is a p1

@ghost ghost assigned iteles Aug 18, 2017
@iteles iteles added the priority-2 Second highest priority, should be worked on as soon as the Priority-1 issues are finished label Aug 18, 2017
@iteles
Copy link
Member

iteles commented Aug 18, 2017

Making this a priority-2 only because #373 should be the only top priority, followed by the other issues in #321 in order.

@iteles iteles assigned ghost and unassigned iteles Aug 18, 2017
@Jbarget
Copy link
Member

Jbarget commented Aug 30, 2017

also linked to dwyl/labels#73

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 20, 2017

@iteles can we action the new labelling system across all of our repos?
dwyl/labels#73

@ghost ghost assigned iteles and unassigned ghost Sep 20, 2017
@ghost ghost added the question A question needs to be answered before progress can be made on this issue label Sep 20, 2017
@iteles
Copy link
Member

iteles commented Sep 25, 2017

@markwilliamfirth I think we need to trial it in a few more places first - the only people who have tried this out yet are diligent at updating labels and my real question there is whether this will be done across the board.

Happy to add it to hq until we have time ready for use though.

@iteles iteles assigned ghost and unassigned iteles Sep 25, 2017
@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 29, 2017

my real question there is whether this will be done across the board

@iteles this is more of a policy and enforcement of policy issue rather than an issue with the system

I don't think this should be put on hq first, I think this should be trialed on a development repo first, as ops issues are very different when compared to dev issues and the main value proposition of this process is towards improving estimations that contribute to sprint planning

I would suggest let's do it on the dwylbot repo and if it works then move it onto one client repo to start with

@Jbarget
Copy link
Member

Jbarget commented Sep 29, 2017

@markwilliamfirth @iteles if it is going to be trialled on dwylbot I would recommend setting clear guidelines on how to use the AT labels. Mainly in terms of the feedback here: dwyl/labels#73 (comment) as its something that we would have benefitted from

@iteles
Copy link
Member

iteles commented Sep 29, 2017

As we discussed extensively @markwilliamfirth, this is absolutely not a 'development-only' thing.

We time estimate tasks because:

  • Without timeboxing, tasks (especially non-development tasks) can easily extend and take up large amounts of time because of distractions, interruptions and a lack of a plan - time boxing helps to focus on the task at hand
  • It forces us to think about tasks before we start on them and devise an efficient plan for how it is done
  • This creates a clear set of steps that ensures this process is much more repeatable and saves time for future dwyler
  • Actively thinking about the appropriate time boxing for a task and then comparing the actual time taken to the estimate is the best way to get better at estimating and set the correct expectations with those who work with you

Adding this to the hq repo will allow us to better understand how, why and when this works/doesn't work.

As we also discussed, I also agree with this being added to dwylbot as a great next trial.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 29, 2017

@iteles again would voice my disagreement with the initial repo being hq vs a dev repo, can explain my reasoning fully here if you'd like

@iteles
Copy link
Member

iteles commented Oct 1, 2017

I did not suggest that the initial repo be hq. The initial repo has already been tudo. The suggestion now is to roll it out to dwylbot & dwyl-site as you suggested and hq in parallel.

@ghost ghost removed the question A question needs to be answered before progress can be made on this issue label Oct 9, 2017
@jammur jammur unassigned ghost Dec 14, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
priority-2 Second highest priority, should be worked on as soon as the Priority-1 issues are finished
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants