Child pages
  • PHYDO Retrospective - Sprint 48
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
ParticipantsSabrina Goodpaster William G. Cowan Amol Khedkar Daniel Pierce Nianli Ma Adam Ploshay Sadie Roosa, Rebecca Fraimow


What went well?

  • Better job at estimating and committing for those with limited time / OOO – Sadie
  • Good job at looking at our timeline to decide what to commit to – Rebecca
  • Continuous backlog grooming helps at sprint planning – Will
  • Code review was helpful – Will

What did not go well?

  • Issues with the IU Bridge, moving forward we have Zoom options – Daniel

  • Estimation on story 865 was lower than what we’ve realized, due to multiple unknowns/blockers encountered – Amol

  • Still over committing on most of our sprints – Will

What should be done differently in the future?

  • For big changes, we need to plan in advance for more code reviews – Will

  • Break down larger stories in to smaller parts so that we can better commit to appropriate sized chunks for a sprint – Will