Clarify Staging Review artifacts requirements

[erinrwhite]

User Story

As a VFS team member, I want to understand which artifacts are absolutely required for my team to provide at a Staging Review.

As a Governance Team member, I want to have the information I need to complete a review.

As on-support Governance Team member, I want to know what artifacts need to be present to verify four days in advance that teams' Collab Cycle tickets have the artifacts necessary for a Staging Review.

Assignee: @erinrwhite Peer Reviewer: @allison0034

Description

At Staging Reviews we currently ask VFS teams for a number of artifacts for Governance's review. If these required elements are not present, Governance cancels the review and asks the VFS team to reschedule. In our Collab Cycle ticket template and our Staging Review requirements list, it is not currently 100% clear which of these artifacts are actually required ahead of time, and which are optional, nice to have, or otherwise would not cause the team to need to reschedule the Staging Review.

This ticket should be completed alongside #88107

Is @it-harrison able to help rewrite the script for updating the Collaboration Cycle Request tickets so that ALL open Collab Cycle Request tickets have the up to date guidance re: required artifacts?

Impacted Artifacts

• Wherever Staging Review requirements text appears:
  • Calendly Slack workflows?
  • Staging Review page on Platform website
  • How to document findings at SR
  • note from Shira: I do not believe that the requirements should be in this doc. The SR requirements are VFS facing and should not be copy/pasted in operational docs. This doc should instead point to the SR requirements on Platform Website.
• Artifacts list on Collab Cycle ticket template (in kickoff instructions)

Tasks

• [ ] Update Staging Review Requirements text to reflect current practice and specifically list needed artifacts and/or tasks to be completed ahead of SR.
• [ ] Update Staging Review section of Collab Cycle ticket to clearly reflect required vs optional or non-review-blocking artifacts.

Peer Review

To be completed by peer reviewer

• [ ] User story and acceptance criteria are met

Acceptance Criteria

• [ ] The Staging Review requirements have been updated to clearly state which artifacts are required
• [ ] All VFS-facing guidance regarding the artifacts and requirements has been updated to reflect the change

Team Notification

• [ ] Slack post on #platform-governance-team
• [ ] Presentation at Weekly Initiative Meeting
• [ ] No notification needed

How to prepare this issue

Refinement

• [x] Ticket has user story, description, tasks, and acceptance criteria
• [x] Ticket has been sized
• [x] Once all above items are checked, add the 'Ready' label.

  Planning

  If this ticket is picked up from the Backlog mid-sprint, connect with Shira to ensure the below items are completed correctly

• [x] Ticket has been discussed as a team at Planning
• [x] Ticket has been assigned to appropriate initiative or quarterly epic
• [x] Ticket has been assigned to a Sprint
• [x] Ticket has been moved to the Planned pipeline in the Governance team board
• [x] Ticket as an assignee and peer reviewer

[erinrwhite]

@shiragoodman a draft of another ticket about clarifying required SR artifacts based on our convo this morning. Still needs refining - please take a look when you have some time. Thank you!

[shiragoodman]

@erinrwhite would you imagine this ticket and #88107 going hand in hand? Would it make sense to work on them in parallel?

[erinrwhite]

@shiragoodman yes! While we're in there...

[erinrwhite]

Prepping for conversation with team at weekly initiative meeting on Monday

[erinrwhite]

Started draft doc for team review on Monday

[erinrwhite]

Next steps from team meeting:

• Erin update CC ticket SR artifacts section (including changes for #88107) and share for review, then
• Ian run script to update existing CC tickets
• Shira - write ticket to announce to VFS teams via change history and slack

[erinrwhite]

@allison0034 Draft page of SR requirements ready for your review before I share out again with the team

[allison0034]

@erinrwhite this is much more clear! I did make some comments. My only concern is we know from past user testing that this ticket is a lot and overwhelms VFS teams. I know there is more content now with your changes. We need to trim any unnecessary content. Typically I see if I remove something, does the sentence still make sense. We tend to repeat a lot of what we say.

Take a look and see if anything I commented makes sense.

[erinrwhite]

thank you @allison0034 those are good edits! I incorporated those and whittled it down even more. Going to share with the team for a last gut-check before implementing edits.