[00:43:18] <mbinder>	 jaufrecht_: did I miss anything from phlogiston chat? I'd love to debrief and pick your brain about how to best use this opportunity to help iOS mature its process
[00:44:52] <mbinder>	 meeple27: thx for cranking that out. Should I wait, per your email?
[00:45:21] <meeple27>	 mbinder: Per kristenlans's advice above, I would guess so
[00:45:34] <mbinder>	 k
[00:45:47] <meeple27>	 thanks, and have a great long weekend!
[00:46:03] <mbinder>	 👍
[00:47:16] <jaufrecht_>	 mbinder, email coming now
[00:47:44] <mbinder>	 k
[17:55:28] <dstrine>	 @meeple27 re barrier for P1: are we trying to convince ourselves (TPG) or WMF that agile scales? 
[17:55:44] <meeple27>	 beats me? It wasn't my barrier to begin with
[17:55:51] <dstrine>	 me neither! 
[17:55:53] <dstrine>	 lol
[17:56:18] <meeple27>	 it doesn't sound like a jaufrecht_ thing
[17:56:18] <dstrine>	 I don't think we need to convince ourselve
[17:56:45] <meeple27>	 it seems like we shouldn't take the time to write a report until we know that someone would use it
[17:57:01] <dstrine>	 however, I think it would be very helpful if we did this srt of survey for our own knowledge or as a prep to a meeting where we interact with the WMF leads/execs 
[17:57:07] <meeple27>	 so at a minimum, we should first guerilla either TPG or "stakeholders" to see if the report is needed
[17:57:39] <meeple27>	 I could see doing it as a launch of "ok, we picked this strategy. what are the best practices out there?"
[17:57:50] <dstrine>	 yes^^
[17:58:28] <meeple27>	 kristenlans: any idea who added the "scaling" barrier to the agile possibility?
[17:58:32] <dstrine>	 all of these possibilities have tests and then they also have a bit of homework or prep I think this would fall into the later
[17:59:48] <meeple27>	 I guess my best advice (to myself, I suppose, as the anchor) would be to have a guerilla survey of execs/directors to see if they are uncomfortable enough to need the report
[18:00:03] <meeple27>	 if they are, do it as a small test. Otherwise, don't bother until after we have picked this possibility
[18:00:23] <dstrine>	 now that I an reading more of P1 I noticed that the barrier slide does not capture all the tests below it. 
[18:00:27] <meeple27>	 and I guess the guerilla could include polling tpg too
[18:00:35] <meeple27>	 looking...
[18:01:22] <meeple27>	 seems like it does to me
[18:01:31] <meeple27>	 3 tests for barrier 1, 2 for barrier 2, and 1 for barrier 3
[18:01:47] <meeple27>	 ggellerman: Do you know who added the "scaling" test to the agile possibility (p1)?
[18:01:48] <dstrine>	 do we need all of them?
[18:02:27] <ggellerman>	 meeple27: sorry, I don't
[18:02:28] <meeple27>	 beats me. I didn't add them
[18:02:29] <kristenlans>	 meeple27: I want to say it was Grace or Strine....
[18:02:37] <kristenlans>	 haha ok not ggellerman 
[18:02:44] <meeple27>	 and strine already denied it
[18:02:45] <kristenlans>	 We could blame it on Arthur!
[18:02:46] <dstrine>	 When I played skeptic I remember saying that we would need to convince execs that it would scale. Maybe this got edited over time or in IRL? 
[18:02:59] <meeple27>	 yup, let's start the tradition of blaming arthur for everything!
[18:03:21] <ggellerman>	 meeple27: let me take a look...don't know off the top of my head, but will investigate
[18:03:23] <meeple27>	 dstrine: yup, sounds like you planted the seed
[18:03:50] <dstrine>	 it's possible this organically grew to something different over some iterations 
[18:03:55] <kristenlans>	 The case of the orphaned barrier
[18:04:13] <dstrine>	 I would like to propose the "convince execs" version 
[18:05:27] <meeple27>	 reminds me of the first 2 paragraphs of http://www.impacthiringsolutions.com/blog/the-roast-beef-story/
[18:05:51] <meeple27>	 dstrine: are you ok with the 2-parter: First, ask execs if it would be worth doing, and then if so, doing it?
[18:07:33] <ggellerman>	 meeple27: which slide in 1 are you asking about?
[18:08:08] <meeple27>	 #14
[18:08:24] <meeple27>	 find examples of where else it has worked
[18:09:41] <dstrine>	 meeple27: what if we did this investigation and presented a few historic versions to lead a conversation with execs? We would ask execs which configuration or aspects seemed more palatable. I think it would help give context and produce a more concrete result. 
[18:10:41] <meeple27>	 I don't fancy spending 20 hours doing a report that might not be needed
[18:10:46] <meeple27>	 but if you're volunteering...
[18:11:50] <dstrine>	 why does it need to be 20 hours? What if it means creating a slide deck of the high level process or (lets say 4) other orgs? 
[18:12:32] <dstrine>	 *of 4 other orgs
[18:18:42] <ggellerman>	 +1 to Strine's proposal of a slide deck with high level process instead of a white paper
[18:19:48] <ggellerman>	 meeple27: slide 14 in pos 1 does not look familiari
[18:21:03] <meeple27>	 ggellerman: It was the slide that talked about "scaling", which in our strategy mtg we decided wasn't about scaling, per se, but was about it working with strategic cross-team issues
[18:21:11] <meeple27>	 so it was heavily reworded
[18:21:37] <meeple27>	 dstrine: it would take me 20 hours (or 10, or 40). If you could do it in less, that would be awesome
[18:22:09] <meeple27>	 ggellerman: the slide deck version is more like slide 15
[18:22:25] <meeple27>	 making stuff up is definitely quicker than doing research
[18:22:45] <meeple27>	 (and I say that as a fan of making stuff up when it makes sense to do so)
[18:23:30] <ggellerman>	 meeple27: slide 15 does not sound like my work
[18:23:50] <dstrine>	 We're going to have very similar prep times for many of these test. We should take that into consideration 
[18:26:36] <meeple27>	 i just think it would be awkward to spend that time to create a report, show up at the exec suite, and have them say "well, duh. we know agile would be awesome."
[18:26:56] <meeple27>	 i would rather spend an hour finding out whether we should spend the ~20
[19:25:07] <awjr>	 You have my blessing to blame me for anything 
[19:42:39] <meeple27>	 hi awjr!
[19:42:58] <meeple27>	 dstrine: can we chat about p2 s14?
[19:44:06] <meeple27>	 I realized that it says "80% of attendees" find it valuable. I'm thinking something more like "product managers of at least 2 of the 3 teams" find it valuable
[19:44:10] <meeple27>	 does that make sense?
[20:00:17] <dstrine>	 meeple27: sure I can make that change
[20:00:31] <meeple27>	 cool. with that, you can resolve my comment
[21:31:25] <meeple27>	 kristenlans dstrine ggellerman jaufrecht_: Any interest in starting the TPG meeting 15 or 25 minutes early?
[21:31:36] <jaufrecht_>	 15 to 20, sure
[21:31:48] <ggellerman>	 fine for me, too!
[21:31:53] <dstrine>	 ok
[21:32:38] <dstrine>	 soo 1:40?
[21:34:13] <kristenlans>	 sure!
[21:39:51] <jaufrecht_>	 Still chewing
[21:44:18] <wikibugs>	 6Team-Practices, 7Epic, 7Milestone: [EPIC] Burn-up charts actively used by three teams - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120559#1903688 (10JAufrecht)
[21:50:23] <wikibugs>	 6Team-Practices, 15User-JAufrecht: Document complexities of Maintenance Fraction definition - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T109877#1903693 (10JAufrecht)
[21:50:36] <wikibugs>	 6Team-Practices, 15User-JAufrecht: TPG adopts per-category Phlogiston burnups - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119136#1903694 (10JAufrecht)
[21:50:50] <wikibugs>	 6Team-Practices, 10Phlogiston, 15User-JAufrecht: Find out what SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) exist for formalizing Phlogiston as a project - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T121720#1903704 (10JAufrecht)