Implement the following attribute when delivering:
- Clear tracking of work across the teams so that when we says that a milestone is delivered, then:
- it is usable by all types of users (operators, web devs, system devs).
- It is documented (docs, dev rel)
- It is of high quality (QA, Dogfooding)
- Items (Milestones, Deliverables, Epics, Tasks) can easily be closed and marked as complete thanks to:
- Minimal external dependencies
- Minimal intra-team dependency
- Finite, well-define scope.
- Each milestone and the effort needed to achieve it has a clear value thanks to a well-defined, value-driven, and minimal scope.
| Name | Number of | Timeframe | Team Scope | Owner | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milestone | ? | Pencilled for the year, planned for 2 quarters | Most subteams | Waku Lead | A, or cohesive set of, feature(s). |
| Deliverable | Several per milestone | Set for a milestone | Subteam leads | Waku Lead | Deliverable may be the result of the work of one, some or all Waku subteams. |
| Epic | Several per deliverable | Set for a deliverable | Usually one subteam or external team (e.g. DST) | Subteam Lead or Member | Milestone work for a given subteam. |
| Task | Several per Epic | Set monthly-ish, delivered weekly | One subteam or individual | Team Member | May be one or several piece of work, client specific. |
A Milestone:
- Provides a tangible user benefit: The milestone should aim to provide a distinct benefit or feature to the user, whether they are end users, operators, or developers. In some cases, a milestone may be a bundle of small features. The bundle of features should be cohesive and the benefit to the users should be easy to summarize. Most likely, a bundled milestone will be scoped to a given track.
- Minimal Scope: The milestone should be trimmed to a minimal scope, encompassing only what is just enough to assess the potential impact of these features on the project's metrics (e.g. number of users, revenue). This means descoping any advanced features and aiming for a MVP-level delivery.
- Transversal: While the vertical scope of a milestone should be minimal, the delivery should be complete in terms of research, engineering, QA, documentation and dev rel assets so that the feature can be pushed to users once the milestone is marked as complete. Feedback loops should be as small as possible to ensure the value of a milestone is measured in a timely manner.
- Attached Estimate: An estimate should be associated with the milestone to facilitate the measurement of potential ROI. Additionally, tracking the estimate versus the actual progress is crucial for identifying any deviation and making informed decisions (e.g., deciding whether to continue if we learn the estimate is likely to be overrun).
Phase 1: Waku lead defines the scope within the Milestone. The scope is then discussed asynchronously in the comments of the GitHub issue by relevant subteams and stakeholders, scope of Epics and subtasks are defined.
Phase 2: During a Waku PM call, the team reviews the Milestone to confirm scope or identify areas that require additional scoping.
Phase 3: If the scope is agreed upon, the team can proceed to create Epics and schedule work for kickoff.
A Milestone is divided into Deliverables. A Deliverable is divided into Epics. Each Epic is assigned to a given subteam.
Each Waku subteam lead (or selected member) is accountable for the delivery of their epic.
Typically, each milestone will be divided in the following epics:
| Epic Label Prefix | Owner Sub-team | Output | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
E:research |
Waku Research | PoC, RFC, Protocol Simulations/Studies | Initial work done by the research team to create or change a protocol. Engineering-only Milestones may not have such epic |
E:nwaku |
nwaku | MVP quality software | Bring software to MVP level, proceed with re-architecture of PoC if needed, ensure functionality is usable, refine APIs, auto-generated/API documentation, ensure interoperability works |
E:js-waku |
js-waku | MVP quality software, including all supported env (e.g. React Native & Web) | Implement protocol in js-waku, same as nwaku. |
E:qa |
Vac/DST | RFC-based + functionality based tests, both unit and integration tests. | Test engineers take over and complete unit tests + add scenarios in integration test framework. In future, also add scenario to benchmark suite. |
Some milestones may not involve the Waku Research team. In this case, the flow still applies but E:research is skipped.
The Chat SDK team is focusing on go-waku integration in status-go and follows Status' PM for issues and labelling.
Once the team starts building an independent Chat (or other) SDK, the flow will be as above but with research handled by VAC/ACZ and only one dev team:
| Epic Prefix | Owner Sub-team | Output | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
E:acz |
Vac/ACZ | RFC | RFC describing a specific, likely agnostic protocol |
E:chat sdk |
Chat SDK | PoC and then MVP quality software, Application RFC | Implement the ACZ RFC, define API and application protocol |
Handover to QA, Docs, Eco Dev with MVP quality software is still expected down the track but may be pending growing teams.
Each epic should have an owner per subteam.
Most epics will have a unique owner (e.g. a Waku Research team member owns a E:research epic).
The epic owner is responsible for breaking down the work in smaller issues in the related repo.
For research team, it is expected that most of the research work is done by the epic owner, which includes:
- Capturing problem statement
- Designing protocol/solution
- Implementing PoC in reference implementation
- Running tests/simulations to confirm behaviour (to be offloaded to test engineer)
For development teams, it is expected that design/break down is done by the epic owner. But actual work can be picked up by other team member. Epic owner must:
- Understand the change and its implications,
- Liaise with researcher for any doubt or questions or design issues related to specific client/use case,
- Create issues (Tasks) to break down work in client repo, include an acceptance criteria in each issue to ensure that the objective/end goal/behaviour is clearly described.
It is likely that the epic owner will do the core change or first change for a given epic. However, subsequent/other changes may be picked up in parallel or sequentially by other team members.
Hence:
- dependencies must be clearly stated in Task issue description
- Team members must assign Task issues to themselves when work starts
- Team members must update issues to track progress
The program manager should ensure that epics are getting the right assignee in a timely fashion. For example, when research work starts for a given milestone, epic owners from development team should be assigned, so they know to participate in discussions.
Program manager should also ensure that issues are being created in a timely fashion, and is encouraged to use client PM call as a forum to check epics to be assigned, for example when a given epic is near completion.
The following handovers are defined:
| Handover | Expectations when handing over | Expectations when accepting handover |
|---|---|---|
| Research to development teams | - RFC PR is merged - PoC PR is merged |
- RFC content and PoC are reviewed - Own code and functionality - Own minor RFC changes |
| Development teams to QA | - Happy path and selected error path tests exist - APIs are implemented to enable interop testing |
- Review RFC - Review existing tests |
The group or person handing over is expected to initiate a sync (meeting) or async (chat or GitHub) discussion to go through the output and overview.
Once the handover is accepted, the given epic can be closed.
A Milestone:
- MUST have a GitHub Milestone in https://github.com/waku-org/pm repo, to which relevant Deliverables are added.
- The GitHub milestone MUST be used to track progress.
A Deliverable:
- MUST be defined as an issue in the https://github.com/waku-org/pm repo.
- MUST be included in its parent Milestone.
- MUST have an Output section in the description detailing the result of work of the Deliverable.
- MUST have a
Planned StartandDue Dateset
An Epic:
- MUST have a matching GitHub issue in the relevant team's repo.
- MUST have a label with format
Epic. - MUST be added to the description of the parent Deliverable issue.
- MUST have a
Planned StartandDue Dateset (these are GitHub projects fields you can find in theProjectssection of the issue view sidebar). - MAY list Tasks present in other repos.
- MUST have assignee(s), who represent the epic owner (see accountability)
A Task:
- MUST be tracked as a todo item in a GitHub Issue (Deliverable or Epic)
- MUST have an acceptance criteria and/or a list of tasks (that can be other GH issues).
Finally, for Tasks that do not belong to a given Epic or Deliverable:
- MUST qualify as, and have one of the following labels:
bug: This is a bug, likely reported by a usermaintenance: This is maintenance work that is out of the scope of the technical roadmap
Which means, in terms of navigation:
- Work for a Milestone is described in the Roadmap and tracked in the GitHub milestone in the pm repo.
- In the GitHub milestone, we have a list of Deliverables to be achieved, the Deliverables are being closed as the work is done and handed over.
| Task | Responsible | Accountable |
|---|---|---|
| Set Milestones and Deliverables in master document | Waku Lead | Insights |
| Create GitHub milestones and deliverables issues in pm repo | Program Manager | Waku Lead |
| Create epic for team | Team Lead | Program Manager |
| Create issues, PR (tasks) and link them to epics | Team Member | Team Lead |
| Close epic | Team Lead | Program Manager |
| Close deliverable | Waku Lead | Program Manager |
| Handover to Vac-QA, Vac-DST | Team Lead | Vac PoC (?) |
| Proceed with Dogfooding | Team Lead | Waku Lead |
Responsible: who does the work Accountable: delegates and reviews
Waku Lead: @fryorcraken Program Manager: @chair28980 Team Lead: @plopezlpz @Ivansete-status @jm-clius @weboko VAC PoC: @jm-clius
- Milestones and Deliverables are defined in the pm repo
- Deliverables have many epics, one epic per subteam
- Team lead is responsible to ensure Vac-QA is aware of changes, but no need to create a QA epic