For more details about the vision for this area of the product, see the Plan stage page.
This team is currently shared between Plan:Portfolio Management and Plan:Certify. See that page for details.
|Donald Cook||Frontend Engineering Manager, Plan|
|Fatih Acet||Senior Frontend Engineer, Plan|
|Kushal Pandya||Senior Frontend Engineer, Plan & Geo|
|Simon Knox||Frontend Engineer, Plan|
|Winnie Hellmann||Senior Frontend Engineer, Plan and Intern Backend Engineer, Plan|
|Rajat Jain||Frontend Engineer, Plan|
|Scott Stern||Frontend Engineer, Plan|
|Coung Ngo||Frontend Engineer, Plan|
|Florie Guibert||Frontend Engineer, Plan|
|Walmyr Lima e Silva Filho||Senior Software Engineer in Test, Plan|
|Holly Reynolds||Senior Product Designer, Plan|
|Alexis Ginsberg||Senior Product Designer, Plan|
|Nick Brandt||Product Designer, Plan|
|Mark Wood||Senior Product Manager, Plan:Certify|
|Russell Dickenson||Senior Technical Writer, Plan|
Since we share a backend team between the Plan:Portfolio Management and Certify groups, we have a combined metrics dashboard. This is intended to track against some of the Development Department KPIs, particularly those around merge request creation and acceptance. From that dashboard, the following charts show MR Rate and Mean time to merge (MTTM) respectively.
The following chart shows a breakdown of MRs by category (omitting Security, for now). Totals may vary slightly from overall throughput as some MRs may have more than one throughput label.
We have an application performance dashboard (internal) that tracks the performance of the parts of GitLab for which we are responsible. This dashboard is shared between the Portfolio Management and Certify groups for now.
We use a lightweight system of issue weighting to help with capacity planning, with the knowledge that things take longer than you think. These weights are used for capacity planning and the main focus is on making sure the overall sum of the weights is reasonable.
It's OK if an issue takes longer than the weight indicates. The weights are intended to be used in aggregate, and what takes one person a day might take another person a week, depending on their level of background knowledge about the issue. That's explicitly OK and expected.
These weights we use are:
|1||Trivial, does not need any testing|
|2||Small, needs some testing but nothing involved|
|3||Medium, will take some time and collaboration|
|5||Large, will take a major portion of the milestone to finish|
Anything larger than 5 should be broken down if possible.
We look at recent releases and upcoming availability to determine the weight available for a release.
To assign weights to issues in a future milestone, we ask two team members to take the lead each month. They can still ask questions - of each other, of the rest of the team, of the stable counterparts, or anyone else - but they are the initial. This is currently shared across the three Plan backend teams: Project Management, Portfolio Management, and Certify, so people will be asked to weight some issues outside of their immediate team.
To weight issues, they should:
The rotation for upcoming releases is:
|12.3||2019-08-07||Felipe Cardozo||Heinrich Lee Yu|
|12.4||2019-09-07||Charlie Ablett||Mario de la Ossa|
|12.5||2019-10-13||Brett Walker||Alexandru Croitor|
|12.6||2019-11-13||Jarka Košanová||Patrick Derichs|
|12.7||2019-12-13||Jan Provaznik||Eugenia Grieff|
|12.8||2020-01-13||Felipe Cardozo||Mario de la Ossa|
It is often necessary to specify behaviors for a system or application. Requirements Management is a process by which these behaviors would be captured so that there is a clearly defined scope of work.