Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • Clarification, I spent 10 minutes, going through the list of features that were already working. Also we're talking about like one-third of the backlog. So closing them in the sprint would give a drastic boost to the burndown rate and we couldn't really predict an ECD. Commented Sep 6, 2017 at 13:20
  • 3
    Then, perhaps you miscalculate the efforts in these stories? you could change their points and add in the sprint. Commented Sep 6, 2017 at 13:31
  • @EmersonCardoso honestly I don't know why they gave points to those tasks since they knew it was already working. I guess they intended that a sanity check would be done and would consider it as "work". I think that it could be the best compromise since it would basically do the same thing as closing from the backlog for the reporting. Thanks Emerson. I'll ask the PO to see if he agrees. Commented Sep 6, 2017 at 13:35
  • "I don't know why they gave points to those tasks" who are they? If you are a part of the team, you should be involved in the sprint planning meetings. Commented Sep 7, 2017 at 7:37
  • @JoryGeerts I'm not sure how that is related to the question at this point, but let's discuss it anyways. AFAIK, SPs are not attributed in sprint planning meetings, they are in groomings. And yes I should be involved in those meetings too, but the current SP values comes from the initial transformation of requirements in smaller epics/tasks and I was just assigned to the project, we didn't have any groomings since then. Also, we're more in a Kanban process for this project. Commented Sep 7, 2017 at 17:52