Talk:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Platform Split Proposal

Discussion of desired outcomes
I find a lot of these desired outcomes to be very vague, and I actually disagree that the platform split proposal even causes some of these benefits. I'd also note that a lot of these benefits are for us as a team, and given that the tradeoff is that we lose our focus on a single-user group and have overheads there as compared to a feature split, I'm sceptical of this proposal. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Streamline planning and estimation
This is a benefit of splitting, irrespective of whether it's a feature vs platform split. Additionally, since the tech leads of both teams will be required to be up-to-date the advancements from the other team, whether the split is around feature or platform is irrelevant. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Improve collaboration between engineers and product during planning & prioritization
This is pretty vague. How? --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Improve project management efficiency
How? We currently operate separate sprint boards for both teams, so what project management overhead would this reduce, and who would it reduce it for? --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Increase clarity around our goals for the quarter and from sprint to sprint
This has nothing to do with the platform vs feature team split proposal. If teams are split, then detailed goals will be laid out for those teams and they'll be clear for each individual team. In fact, I think the platform split will decrease clarity around goals, because the teams will be trying to serve multiple users at the same time (e.g. readers and editors) so there will be a lack of clarity around how those two user groups are weighed against each other. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Improve trust in our ability to self-organize and execute on a plan to deliver user value at a competitive pace
Is this perceived to be a problem now? I'd appreciate some details. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Establish and maintain a sustainable planning and working rhythm
This is too vague for me to know what this means. Can some explanation be added? --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)