Chair	Timekeeper	Note Taker
DM	DK	IG

Present:

• in person: DK, JD, TW, IG
• online: LC, LJ, DM, SC, CMS, JH

Previous Sprint

• Python standards -> JH suggested a code chat or code review to discuss the changes. LJ agreed and reminded the group that we have standards already, now we'll enforce them. LJ to discuss at the forthcoming sprint planning meeting.

• Assign ourselves as reviewer of a PR -> all agreed good idea.

• Have a Pending column in tasks board rather than two columns -> KB created mockups of potential new task board (link in Dev-Changes-Memo Teams channel). View 4 agreed as best option. Discussion of labels, sorting of columns, etc. KB will write up some instructions on how to use the system, and to link them from said Teams channel. -> LJ commented that it's an improvement.

• Fleeces for new starters - T-shirts and polo shirts also requested -> JH will get some quotes -> Not done yet - Jack is happy to pass on acquisition information in case anyone else gets some time to do it.

• Should email-exp-controls Teams channel contribute to support issues effort calculations? -> all agreed to only discuss issues in this channel in 'support-issues' for accounting purposes. 'Read Only' access applied to channel? -> Yes it's read-only.

• New web dashboard - JH would like to further develop -> TW suggested a code-chat/review of what's been done already before deploying. Agreed would be done on 25/07/2024. UPDATE: JH gave talk & demonstration on morning of 01/08/2024. -> JH is planning to work on this next sprint.

• NOT looking at project board in Stand-Up meeting (as new checks cover most issues) -> agreed to check weekly during Friday's meeting as a trial.-> all finding it a good thing.

• Adding new sub-modules to EPICS Top repository -> agreed to create and add empty submodule (to master branch) at beginning of ticket, reviewer will then populate during final merge. -> Not yet done.

• Concern over large number of 'in progress' tickets -> suggestion to use 'impeded' label more freely rather than just for external reasons. -> Doing alright.

• 15 minute wait during Stand-Up - awkward with gap in middle while those present wait for others who've said they'll be late. Sometimes gap filled with looking further at system issues -> LC suggested to start 10:15 and do personal updates first, then look at system status. LC has checked meeting room availability. Agreed we'll try this for two sprints and review next but one retrospective. Highlight this for reviewer of said sprint -> All agree that 10:15 is much better.

Current Sprint

• DK: I think it would be beneficial to the team if every member of it showed a summary slide at each sprint review, no matter how large or small their own perceived contribution to the project may be. -> Unanimous agreement generally.
• FA: Could we move sprint planning to be 10:30 to 12:30 which would be more in line with our start time to allow people travelling further to get to the meeting in time? We could also then use the existing 10:15 stand-up slot for a triage of any support issues for when planning is in cycle. -> There was a certain amount of disagreement due to potential conflicts with out of core-hours, in particular lunchtime. Needs further discussion.
• TW: Could we encourage signing off messages sent from the shared mailbox with something like "Tom (on behalf of exp controls)" or similar? Not just for our scientists actually, sometimes it's a bit tricky as a developer to find out who replied to one of the messages. -> Agreed within the team that we should always try to associate a 'human' with a communication.
• LJ: Do we want to be more strict about re-pointing tickets at sprint change-overs/when putting them into review? we started this sprint with supposedly a large amount of points in review, but often when this is the case it's actually not representative of amount of work to be done. -> There was some discussion and no conclusion was reached. Needs further discussion.
• TW: SURF caused a lot of support issues this sprint, which fell disproportionately on one or two team members. The feeling is that we are taking the blame for issues outside of our control. -> TW suggested more pairing when addressing SURF support calls. All agreed this was a good suggestion. JH/DK suggested a presentation to the dev team on the software architecture etc. to increase familiarity.

Mad/Glad/Sad

• LC: Sad that Isaac was leaving and he will be missed.
• DK: Sad about SURF issues.
• LJ: Glad that we now have coding standards in place and that we can now build on them.
• IG: Mad that had to share a meeting room with very active rodents above the ceiling.