process-handbook
process-handbook copied to clipboard
'Bodyshopping'
Putting developers into an existing team, particularly one with an existing 'lead developer' isn't always a great idea. Need to explain our experiences of this - what works and what doesn't.
@mantagen @Jbarget You may want to contribute here! ;)
It's a real thing. we didn't make it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_shopping ...
I think it depends.
I think the beginning is probably the most crucial part. With experience, bodies can come in and be assertive wrt standards, consistency etc.
Given the chance again, I would definitely do it again. I would do it differently, but I'd do it again
@mantagen if you have time, please share what you would do differently. 👍
Notes from our meeting with O and TF:
- Onboarding Document (up to date READMEs) - we all felt the most integral part of getting someone new working within an established team quickly would be an onboarding document containing styleguides, testing, documentation on how the project is using each technology and general protocols (git flow, code review, issues).
- An actual 'master' branch - joining a team with an up to date master branch will allow for a smoother transition with fewer merge conflicts when it comes to merge.
- Short branch/feature lifecycles - having short lived branches reduces the possibility that when new members are joining they would have to branch off a branch that is not up to date with the latest code.
- Cost benefit - depending on the amount of experience the new members have it may not be beneficial to add them to the team if they are only going to join the team for a short amount of time. (It worked in our case with TF as they are very experienced and so used to 5 day sprints and having to get up to speed quickly).
NB. In our case it was good for TF to join the team as where we only proposing and did not implement a standard they actioned a much needed structure to reinforce what we only voiced.
@jbarget thanks for these notes!
@iteles - what would you like to be done with this issue? Would you like a README created on this? Or was this just a point for consideration at the time that can now be closed?