A high performing team who provides our customers with a world-class buyer experience through the products we build. Our team strives to build an experience that is delightful, performant, trustworthy, and reliable.
Fulfillment focuses on improving our capabilities and metrics in the following areas:
In addition to the Fulfillment Product Direction, the Fulfillment Development Sub-department strives to:
| Person | Role |
|---|
The following members of other functional teams are our stable counterparts.
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| Andrew Kelly | Security Manager, Application Security |
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| Jessica Salcido | Finance Systems Administrator |
| Person | Role |
|---|
The Sales & Go-To-Market stable counterpart will serve as the GTM DRI for strategic cross-functional intiatives, new feature and system updates, and bug resolution. They will ensure that an end-to-end approach is taken into account when communicating with the field and users. Fulfillment PMs can engage the counterpart for new GTM work by using @mention in GitLab as the primary method to submit and prioritize tasks.
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| Anna Piaseczna | Senior Manager, Billing Operations GPO |
| Sarah McCauley | Director, Billing & Accounts Receivable |
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| David Sakamoto | Vice President of Customer Success |
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| John Lyttle | Manager, Support Engineering |
| Ket Slaats | Manager, Support Engineering (APAC) |
| Michael Dunninger | Support Engineering Manager (Americas North) |
| Person | Role |
|---|---|
| Ian Pedowitz | Director, Strategy and Operations |
Working in SAFE manner at GitLab is everyone's responsibility. We along with our stable counterparts in Sales and Billing contribute to an area of the product that potentially could encounter sensitive or financial information, and could have an effect on the business as a whole. Therefore, it's important for Fulfillment team members to ensure that the SAFE epics, issues, videos, MRs, and other artifacts we produce are kept confidential.
On occasion, it may be prudent to include language like the following to the description of public issues where potentially SAFE discussions are happening.
This page may contain information related to upcoming products, features and functionality.
It is important to note that the information presented is for informational purposes only, so please do not rely on the information for purchasing or planning purposes.
Just like with all projects, the items mentioned on the page are subject to change or delay, and the development, release, and timing of any products, features, or functionality remain at the sole discretion of GitLab Inc.
Similarly, not all information should be included in the public handbook. Instead, use the private internal handbook for this SAFE information.
Please reference this documentation about promising features in future versions for more information.
We plan in monthly cycles in accordance with our Product Development Timeline.
Release scope for an upcoming release should be finalized by the 1st.
On or around the 26th: Product meets with Engineering Managers for a preliminary issue review. Issues are tagged with a milestone and are estimated initially.
Planning Issues
To request work to be added to the Fulfillment Roadmap, please open an issue by following this link and tag one of the Fulfillment Product Managers.
A Fulfillment Product Manager will be assigned to review the request and start evaluating the scope and impact. This may take some time depending on team capacity. Once evaluated, the PM will:
We strictly adhere to this Intake Request process to ensure we capture the full details of a request before actioning on it. Once our Product Managers receive this request, we'll work with the requestor to ensure we have a full understanding of the problem and requirements. After this, we will prioritize your request.
We follow the prioritization guidelines and use cross-functional prioritization. In addition to these company-wide prioritization inputs, PMs review the L&R Support Priority Issues list for Fulfillment.
Every team uses the monthly prioritization template for cross-functional dashboard reviews every month.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open SUS-impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
(Sisense↗) We also track our backlog of issues, including past due security and infradev issues, and total open System Usability Scale (SUS) impacting issues and bugs.
(Sisense↗) MR Type labels help us report what we're working on to industry analysts in a way that's consistent across the engineering department. The dashboard below shows the trend of MR Types over time and a list of merged MRs.
(Sisense↗) Flaky test are problematic for many reasons.
Before work can begin on an issue, we should estimate it first after a preliminary investigation. This is normally done in the monthly planning meeting.
| Weight | Description (Engineering) |
|---|---|
| 1 | The simplest possible change. We are confident there will be no side effects. |
| 2 | A simple change (minimal code changes), where we understand all of the requirements. |
| 3 | A simple change, but the code footprint is bigger (e.g. lots of different files, or tests effected). The requirements are clear. |
| 5 | A more complex change that will impact multiple areas of the codebase, there may also be some refactoring involved. Requirements are understood but you feel there are likely to be some gaps along the way. |
| 8 | A complex change, that will involve much of the codebase or will require lots of input from others to determine the requirements. |
| 13 | A significant change that may have dependencies (other teams or third-parties) and we likely still don't understand all of the requirements. It's unlikely we would commit to this in a milestone, and the preference would be to further clarify requirements and/or break in to smaller Issues. |
In planning and estimation, we value velocity over predictability. The main goal of our planning and estimation is to focus on the MVC, uncover blind spots, and help us achieve a baseline level of predictability without over optimizing. In general departments at GitLab aim for [70% predictability] but in the Fulfillment sub-department we aim for 80% predictability since our work is typically cross-functional and we need to be in lockstep with other departments.
Estimation Template
The following is a guiding mental framework for engineers to consider when contributing to estimates on issues.
### Refinement / Weighting
<!--
Ready for development means replying yes to the following questions:
- Is this issue sufficiently small enough? If not, break it into smaller issues
- Is it assigned to the correct domain (e.g. frontend, backend)? If not, break it into two issues for the respective domains
– Is the issue clear and easy to understand? If not, try asking further clarification questions and update the description once they are received
If more than 2 MRs are needed, consider adding a table like the following to the description (e.g. under `Implementation plan`).
| Description | MR |
|-|-|
|||
It will help track the status.
-->
- [ ] Ready for development
- [ ] Weight is assigned
- [ ] Number of MRs listed
- [ ] Needs testing considerations
- [ ] Needs documentation updates
**Reasoning:**
<!--
Add some initial thoughts on how you might break down this issue. A bulleted list is fine.
This will likely require the code changes similar to the following:
- replace the hex driver with a sonic screwdriver
- rewrite backups to magnetic tape
- send up semaphore flags to warn others
Links to previous examples. Discussions on prior art. Notice examples of the simplicity/complexity in the proposed designs.
-->
Engineers can find and open their team's planning issue to check their milestone board
and begin working first on those with the deliverable label.
It's possible for engineers to pick any of the remaining issues for the milestone once the deliverables are done. If the engineer has no preference, they can choose the next available issue from the top.
We generally follow the Product Development Flow and use the workflow labels as defined there.
Generally speaking, issues are in one of two states:
Basecamp thinks about these stages in relation to the climb and descent of a hill.
While individual groups are free to use as many stages in the Product Development Flow workflow as they find useful, we should be somewhat prescriptive on how issues transition from discovery/refinement to implementation.
Quad-planning workflow
The SETs helps facilitate the quad-planning process. This is the participation of Product Management, Development, UX, and the Quality team which aims to bring test planning as a topic before the development of any feature.
We follow the Quad Planning process defined here.
Quad Planning Dashboard showcases the total Planned issues for Quad Planning vs the actual ones for each milestone.
We strive to provide excellent usability in all of our workflows, creating a balance between user and business needs. Product Designers work closely with Product Managers and Engineers. Visit the Fulfillment User Experience page for details.
In summary,
UX Problem Validation and UX Solution Validation labels.We have approval rules enabled in CustomersDot, so every MR that targets main needs at least one approval (different from the author/committer).
MRs require the following:
In addition to the approval rules, MRs may require additional reviews as suggested by the Danger bot:
Every week, each engineer is expected to provide a quick async issue update by commenting on their assigned issues using the following template:
<!---
Please be sure to update the workflow labels of your issue to one of the following (that best describes the status)"
- ~"workflow::In dev"
- ~"workflow::In review"
- ~"workflow::verification"
- ~"workflow::blocked"
-->
### Async issue update
1. Please provide a quick summary of the current status (one sentence)
-
1. How confident are you that this will make it to the current milestone?
- [ ] Not confident
- [ ] Slightly confident
- [ ] Very confident
1. Are there any opportunities to further break the issue or merge request into smaller pieces (if applicable)?
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
1. Were expectations met from a previous update? If not, please explain why.
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No, ___
1. Are the related issues up to date? Please link any missing issues in the epic that could be linked to this issue
- [ ] Yes
- [ ] No
/health_status [on_track, needs_attention, at_risk]
We do this to encourage our team to be more async in collaboration and to allow the community and other team members to know the progress of issues that we are actively working on.
Some work can take a few milestones to complete. Together with regular async issue updates, it is useful to set demos. Advantages are:
Note that providing demos and recordings is already encouraged to ease the review process in MRs.
For this purpose, a YouTube playlist has been created: Fulfillment Demos (some content is internal only). To upload your demos, you can follow the process described here. Once the video is created, link it to the Fulfillment Demos playlist. Consider adding the following info in the description:
Here's an example (internal only)
GitLab's Quality is everyone's responsibility. The SETs embedded within Fulfillment section follow the Quality Engineering Department's principles primarily to ensure that everyone is aware of product quality.
End-to-end tests (often referred to as e2e tests) cover full or partial flows that the end-user will go through. Detailed information on testing levels can be found here.
Some examples of these flows:
Since these tests are not fast and more prone to being flaky, prioritization of what to cover with end-to-end tests and what to delegate to lower level tests must be considered.
Fulfillment tests reside both in the GitLab Project and the CustomersDot Project, use the following guide to determine which project to use when writing the tests:
The GitLab end-to-end testing guide can be found here
Planned & automated Fulfillment test cases in the GitLab project can be found here.
The CustomersDot end-to-end beginners guide can be found here.
Planned/automated test cases in the CustomersDot project can be found here.
The CustomersDot has different types of tests running:
We also have a flag VCR that mocks external calls to Zuora by default. We have a daily pipeline that runs at 9AM UTC with the flag set so the API calls hit the Zuora sandbox and we are notified of any failure (due to potential API changes).
Any test failure is notified to #s_fulfillment_status including a link to the pipeline. Pipeline failures will prevent deployments to staging and production.
Fulfillment Engineering Engineering Managers and Senior Leadership are responsible for the Fulfillment system (e.g., CustomersDot) access review on a quarterly basis. We use the following guidance to perform access reviews, access for systems will be reviewed based on the job roles and departments. As such, reviewers use their best judgement when evaluating the list of team members who currently have access while evaluating their current roles and department associations.
The following list contains some of the standard departments and teams who should retain access:
Read-only Access
Write Access
When in doubt, err on the side of rejecting access as it can be easily restored through another access request.
Fulfillment is unique in Engineering because our changes can directly impact revenue. Changes which impact revenue or are otherwise high risk may require broader scrutiny including input from teams outside of Fulfillment. PM is the DRI on these decisions, taking input from stakeholders including Sales, Enterprise Applications, Marketing, Finance, and Customer Support.
We aspire to be as iterative as possible including even when a change potentially poses high risk.
Below are examples of changes that can be high risk because they can require coordination across many teams:
Below are changes that can often be low risk:
The following processes should be followed for high-risk changes:
We use CD (Continuous Deployment) for CustomersDot and a MR goes through the following stages once it gets merged into the staging branch:
If something goes wrong at the Verification stage, we could create an issue with the label production::blocker, which will prevent deployment to production. The issue cannot be confidential.
For MRs with significant changes, we should consider using feature flags or create an issue with the production::blocker label to pause deployment and allow for longer testing.
The feature freeze for Fulfillment occurs at the same time as the rest of the company, normally around the 18th.
| App | Feature freeze (*) | Milestone ends |
|---|---|---|
| GitLab.com | ~18th-22nd | Same as the freeze |
| Customers/Provision | ~18th-22nd | Same as the freeze |
(*) feature freeze may vary according to the auto-deploy document.
Any issues not merged on the current milestone post feature freeze, will need to be moved to the next one (priority may also change for those).
There are times when GitLab temporarily halts production changes during certain events such as major global holidays, and other times where GitLab Team Member availability is substantially reduced. More information about PCLs can be found in this infrastructure handbook page.
During these PCLs, most notably at the end of the year, PCLs are managed in CustomersDot by creating an issue using the PCL template. This issue should include a checklist of instructions along with DRIs and target times for adding or removing the production::blocker label. Once the PCL has ended, the issue can be closed.
On going Fulfillment Platform work will provide greater observability to all of the Fulfillment systems. In the meantime, however, we have some tools like CustomersDot health that post to #s_fulfillment_status in Slack. On occasion, there are reports of systemic critical trouble like a liveliness probe check failure, invalid SSL certificate, or other application errors. Look to the following sub-sections below for ways that you can contribute to error resolution.
See this handbook page for more information on GitLab Monitoring and Incident Management.
Temporarily, while pagerslack or pagerduty is not adopted in Fulfillment, the following process is in place:
#s_fulfillment_status on Slack is notified and James Lopez and Vitaly Slobodin are paged on the phone@fulfillment-engineering on Slack to notify and get help from the teamIn most cases an MR should follow the standard process of review, maintainer review, merge, and deployment as outlined above. When production is broken:
In these cases please ensure:
Raising an incident is always an option if you need immediate attention on a blocking problem.
Examples of blocking problems include:
Critical problems like a production outage should be raised quickly. You can check #incident_management before raising an incident.
These dashboards are designed to give an insight, to everyone working in a feature category, into how our code operates at GitLab.com scale.
If there is a licensing issue (from support or sales) that requires escalation to product management or engineering, please create an issue via the process documented on the support handbook page under Assistance with License Issue. Please do this instead of escalating in Slack or other methods.
Fulfillment leaders in product management and engineering will subscribe to the License Issue High ARR label so they can be aware of them when they are created. This can be done in via a label search and then clicking on 'subscribe' for the `License Issue High ARR' label.
The Program Manager, Cloud Licensing (currently Wayne Haber) will be primarily responsible for making the e-group aware in #e-group of licensing issues that may have a high ARR impact. The backup for the Program Manager, Cloud Licensing will be the Group Product Manager, Fulfillment (currently Jerome Ng).
After the 8th, the Fulfillment team conducts an asynchronous retrospective. You can find current and past retrospectives for Fulfillment in https://gitlab.com/gl-retrospectives/fulfillment/issues/.
Everyone is encouraged to participate in asynchronous retrospective issues. This is a safe space for team member feedback. You are welcome, however, to bring your comments and concerns to the synchronous retrospective discussion or share them with your manager or other department leadership as well. We follow this guidance to produce an efficient and safe retrospective.
Some things to keep in mind:
Approximately one week after the commentary period closes (on the 26th of the following month) for the async retrospective, we host a synchronous meeting to discuss next steps, action items, and improvements to our processes. This meeting can be facilitated by EMs and ICs alike. We attempt to be timezone inclusive by scheduling the meeting on a rotation between times that are APAC, AMER, and EMEA friendly. This meeting is recorded and shared for the benefit of everyone in Fulfillment.
There are several resources at GitLab for improving our iteration capability:
Agile software development practices uses the phrase Iteration Retrospective to describe what we perform during our Milestone Retrospective. While the Milestone Retrospective is essential in understanding how we can improve, it does have a broad focus across multiple teams. It's a safe space where everyone can contribute through reflection on what we can continue, what we can correct, and what we can improve.
An Iteration Retrospective, in the GitLab values sense that we're using here, is more focused on a specific example (or few examples) of a successful or unsuccessful iteration attempt. That is, an Issue, Epic, or merge request that we can examine deeply to understand what we can do differently in the future to be more iterative and efficient. These retrospectives will provide a growth opportunity to work on developing an iterative mindset - build it, then build it better.
Each group should perform their own Iteration Retrospective, but share as transparently as possible to help fellow teammates and other teams learn from your investigation.
Frequency
Iteration Retrospectives should be conducted quarterly.
Preparation
Engineering Manager(s) or Other team members should review current or previous milestones to find a good, challenging candidate issue for the Iteration Retrospective. Choose one (or two if related) from the suggestions, then create a retrospective issue.
Review these rules for an effective retrospective.
Participation
Everyone can and should contribute asynchronously to the discussion. Present your ideas on alternative methods or mechanisms to break down the problem stated in chosen issue for review. If the problem breakdown was fine, suggestions about process or other refinements are also welcome.
Don't belabor the point, participation should be timeboxed to 1 week. A 1 week due date quick action is available in the template below.
Consider handbook updates, process changes, and bubbling up information from your conclusions after this retrospective.
Template (optional)
Iteration is one of six GitLab Values, but also really difficult. By focusing how we have iterated well in the past and how we have not will help us iterate faster. Please contribute the following [Iteration Retrospective](#link-to-handbook-page).
## Summary
<!--
Include a brief summary of the issue. Consider including key outcomes, significant changes, and impact.
-->
`Summary of the Issue`
## Details
<!--
Complete the following details when creating the issue.
-->
- Did the team meet the iteration goals? Why or why not?
- How many MRs were created to complete the Iteration?
- What were the Days to Merge for the MRs related to the this issue?
- Are there successes or opportunities for improvement with respect to collaboration with peers or stable counterparts?
- Could the original issue have been broken down into smaller components?
- Could the MR(s) have been broken down into smaller components?
## Tasks
**Read**
- [Iteration Value](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/values/#iteration)
- [Engineering Iteration](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/workflow/iteration/)
- [Why iteration helps increase the merge request rate](https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/05/06/observations-on-how-to-iterate-faster/)
**Watch**
- [Interview about iteration in engineering with Christopher and Sid](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPTweQlBS54)
- [Iteration Office Hours with CEO](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liI2RKqh-KA)
**Contribute**
In the threads below consider the following:
- Why was it (un)successful? If successful, how did it meet the definition of an [MVC](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/product-principles/#the-minimal-viable-change-mvc)?
- How did the example not meet the definition of an [MVC](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/product/product-principles/#the-minimal-viable-change-mvc)? In what ways could you have iterated differently? List specific examples.
- Identify areas of improvement for the team that can be incorporated into our processes and workflows.
Follow [these rules](https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/engineering/management/group-retrospectives/) for an effective retrospective.
Check your name off the completed list when all tasks are complete.
**Completed**
<!--
When creating this issue replace the person placeholders with teamembers and select stable counterparts as you see fit.
-->
- [ ] Person
- [ ] Person
- [ ] Person
- [ ] Person
**Next Steps**
- [ ] Engineering Manager to update your team's handbook page with ideas and improvements you've incorporated to improve iteration.
## Thread Prompts
<!--
Use these prompts or similar to start conversation threads.
-->
1. What aspects of the Issue/Epic and resulting MR(s) were very good/bad examples of Iteration and why?
1. Does anyone have alternative ideas for how this work could have been broken down?
1. Is there anything that we can change in our processes or the way we work that could improve our iteration as a team?
/due in 1 week
/label ~"Iteration Retrospective"
This table lists recurring activities that are part of our Project Management Process. Having a well defined cadence makes it simple for our team to understand what activities are happening and when they happen. The listed activities closely follows our company cadence. Use this spreadsheet to edit this markdown table.
| Activity | Cadence | Type | Teams Involved |
|---|---|---|---|
| GitLab.com Deployments | Continuously | Async | Delivery Engineering |
| CustomersDot Deployments | Continuously | Async | Fulfillment Engineering |
| Issue Updates | Weekly | Async | Fulfillment Section |
| Fulfillment Weekly Updates | Weekly | Async | Fulfillment PMs, EMs, QEMs, UXMs |
| Fulfillment Group Syncs | Weekly | Sync | Fulfillment Utilization, Purchase, Provision, and InfraDev Groups |
| Fulfillment PM Syncs | Weekly | Sync | Fulfillment PMs |
| Fulfillment, Growth, AI Assisted EM Syncs | Weekly | Sync | Fulfillment, Growth, AI Assisted EMs |
| Fulfillment PM / EM / QEM / UXM Syncs | Weekly | Sync | Fulfillment PMs, EMs, QEMs, UXMs |
| OKR Check-Ins | Weekly | Async | Fulfillment PMs, EMs, QEMs, UXMs |
| Monthly Self-Managed Releases | Monthly | Async | Delivery Engineering |
| Monthly Release Posts | Monthly | Async | Product and Marketing Functions |
| Milestone Planning | Monthly | Async | Fulfillment Utilization, Purchase, Provision, and InfraDev Groups |
| Roadmap Planning | Monthly | Sync | Fulfillment PMs, EMs, QEMs, UXMs |
| Monthly Product Kickoffs | Monthly | Sync | Product Function |
| Product Key Reviews | Monthly | Sync | Fulfillment PMs, Product Leadership, E-Group |
| Retrospective Issue | Monthly | Async | Fulfillment Section |
| Retrospective Discussion | Monthly | Sync | Fulfillment Section |
| Direction Review | Quarterly | Async | Fulfillment PMs, Product Leadership |
| OKR Planning | Quarterly | Async | Fulfillment PMs, EMs, QEMs, UXMs, Staff Engineers |
| Board Meetings | Quarterly | Async | Fulfillment PMs, E-Group, Board |
This table lists recurring activities that are part of working groups and cross-functional initiatives. Use this spreadsheet to edit this markdown table.
| Activity | Cadence | Type | Teams Involved |
|---|---|---|---|
| Purchasing Reliability Working Group | Weekly | Sync | Fulfillment Engineering, Infrastructure, IT, CEO, CoST |
| GTM Product Usage Data Working Group | Weekly | Sync | Fulfillment PMs, Analytics Instrumentation, Data, Customer Success, Sales |
| GitLab Order to Cash Technical Fusion Team | Weekly | Sync | Fulfillment PMs, Fulfillment Engineering, EntApps, Sales Systems |
| Data & Analytics Program for R&D Teams | Every 2 Weeks | Sync | Fulfillment PMs, Analytics Instrumentation, Growth, Data |
| Cloud Licensing Executive Status Update | Every 2 Weeks | Sync | Cloud Licensing Program Manager, E-Group |
| Ramps / Orders Bi-Weekly | Every 2 Weeks | Sync | Purchase, Provision, EntApps, Channel Ops, Field Ops, Support, Finance, Legal |
| Product ARR Drivers Sync | Monthly | Sync | Customer Success, Sales, Product Leadership |
| Distributor E-Marketplace | Monthly | Sync | Purchase, Provision, EntApps, Channel Ops, Field Ops, Finance, Legal |
See the Fulfillment Section DIB page for more information about our DIB initiatives, including Fulfillment social events.
See the Fulfillment Section Performance Indicators as well as the Centralized Engineering Dashboards.
We attempt to have an ideal Engineer to Maintainer Ratio of 1:1 for both backend and frontend effort for our primary application, CustomersDot. The active list of maintainers can be found on the Engineering Projects page.
Some considerations that differ from other maintainer ratios:
This table lists recurring activities between managers and their reports. Most of these activities are also listed on our Leadership and People Group pages. Use this spreadsheet to edit this markdown table.
| Activity | Cadence | Type | People Involved |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1-1 Meetings | Weekly | Sync | Manager, Report |
| Career Development Conversations | Quarterly | Sync | Manager, Report |
| Skip-Levels Meetings | Quarterly | Sync | Manager's Manager, Report |
| Promotion Planning | Annually | Sync | Manager, Report, Function Leadership, PeopleOps |
| Talent Assessment | Annually | Sync | Manager, Report, Function Leadership, PeopleOps |
| Annual Compensation Reviews | Annually | Sync | Manager, Report, Function Leadership, PeopleOps |
Google groups can be used for easily sending calendar invites to members of the group.
| Group name |
|---|
| fulfillment-engineering |
| Channel Name | Purpose |
|---|---|
| s_fulfillment | Used for asking questions regarding the product, engineering, and Fulfillment processes. |
| s_fulfillment_fyi | Used for announcements related to the Fulfillment sub-department. |
| s_fulfillment_engineering | Used by the Fulfillment sub-department engineering team for internal communication and resolving internal engineering-related queries. |
| s_fulfillment_daily | Used to share daily standup updates. |
| s_fulfillment_status | CustomersDot health monitoring channel. |
:white_check_mark:) Slack emoji to the original question so that team members know that it has been answered and they do not need to look at it any longer.