Are we happy for these minutes to be circulated?
My plan is to
-
E-mail it to the Mantid Team for reference
-
E-mail it to All Epic Owners and Stakeholders as well as sending them a link to the new Epic page (the soft launch I mentioned yesterday)
In terms of sending it to the group leaders with an appropriate message would it make sense for Anders to do that as Chair?
All the best
Sarah
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 07 June 2024 12:43
To: mpb@mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I like it, David. I’ve added in the Pol-SANS Epic too, but then needed to wordsmith a bit to keep it to a single side…
J See what you think!
Steve
From: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 06 June 2024 14:59
To: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>; Foxley, Sarah
(STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>
Cc: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>;
mpb@mantidproject.org
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi All,
An attempt at a summary for circulation is attached. Thoughts and comments welcome. I did this very quickly from memory so there are likely many issues within.
David
From: Cottrell, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.cottrell@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 04 June 2024 09:35
To: Foxley, Sarah (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>
Cc: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>; King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>;
mpb@mantidproject.org
Subject: RE: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Hi,
Yes, this sounds the right way to go. We don’t want to record the discussion, just the conclusions with a few explanatory comments in a concise manner,
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:03 AM
To: Voneshen, David (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>; King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS)
<stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>;
mpb@mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m really happy with this idea of a high level output that we can circulate widely. I agree we don’t need the full details going out.
I’m looking forward to seeing what you come up with David.
Thanks
Sarah
From: David Voneshen - STFC UKRI <david.voneshen@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 June 2024 11:00
To: King, Stephen (STFC,RAL,ISIS) <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>;
mpb@mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I agree with both the points. Seeing that there is a process and that it does lead to some delivery is very helpful, but I’d rather share just the high level parts (epic comments and outcomes). These should be
at the level of a couple of sentences. We should also offer a comment on things which are re-prioritised or moved into the finished/ongoing boxes.
I’d be Ok with producing these going forwards. It should be a case of copy pasting and then lightly editing the comments we write under the epics anyway. The whole thing should fit on 1 page that way people might
read it as well! If I have time this week I’ll have a go at it. But realistically it might have to wait until I’m back in early july.
Best wishes,
David
From: Stephen King - STFC UKRI <stephen.king@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 June 2024 10:29
To: mpb@mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Re: Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
I’m happy to support this in principle, Sarah. My worry is there can be a thing as too much transparency… I’m not sure I support making the unredacted minutes of the prioritisation meeting available.
Rather than place more burden on Jonathan (or whoever follows as our minute secretary), can I suggest adopting a similar approach to that used by our proposal FAPs. So they have full and frank discussions, but
the proposal PI only gets an outcome and a sanitised comment. We could return decision, priority & comment/rationale?
Steve
From: Sarah Foxley - STFC UKRI <sarah.foxley@stfc.ac.uk>
Sent: 03 June 2024 09:23
To: mpb@mantidproject.org
Subject: [Mpb] Prioritisation minutes - can we circulate?
Dear all,
Given we have quite a few topics to discuss at the next board meeting on the 12th June (details to follow) I thought I would discuss this one via the list rather than bring it to an already busy meeting.
It has already been agreed to circulate minutes from the main MPB board meetings but what about the prioritisation meeting too?
There are several reasons why this transparency might be helpful. Firstly it will hopefully give others examples of the sorts of projects we are doing. After our discussion around the Vesuvio epic I’m keen to encourage other instruments/science
areas that are sticking to very old versions of Mantid to put in Epics to move them forward. Not only would the epic cover the making it work bit but also include relevant automated testing for fundamental parts of their workflow. Whilst this wouldn’t complete
negate the need for Beta testing at regular intervals it would ensure we are more likely to catch any major breaking changes whilst we are developing. Although Epics are available through the JIRA board only a limited number of people have access to this and
so most will not know what we’re doing.
Another reason is to do with transparency around our resources. One of my team leads would like to be able to reference the decisions the board are making when explaining where and why resources in that sub-team are being used the way they
are. It has not been a problem so far but they foresee they may need to do this and being able to refer to the decision making would be helpful.
The final reason for this transparency is providing confidence in the process. We reached a milestone at the last prioritisation meeting. The Robust Bragg peak search algorithms Epic is the first one to have gone through the whole process
with board oversight. Epics are moving and not stagnating (on the whole). It would be good to be able to show this to make others more confident about putting forward Epics.
If we do decide to make minutes available we probably will need to decide how and when we do this. We probably need to ensure that Epic Owners and Stakeholders receive information first before making it more widely available. I think it
will cause a lot of upset if an Epic Owner finds out we’re not progressing with their Epic via the minutes rather than reaching out to them personally.
I’d be interested in your thoughts on this one.
Thanks
Sarah
Sarah Foxley
Mantid Team Lead and Engineering Manager
Science and Technology Facilities Council
Phone – 01235 446938
She/Her/Hers
