Sprint 6 - Mentor meeting
- Date: March 27th, 2026
Agenda
- Review MoSP feedback section by section
- Discuss what to improve before the end-of-semester presentation
Project planning feedback
- Milestone "finish migration by 17th" looks artificial — picked the mid-semester date, not derived from the work
- The roadmap looks too sequential / waterfall-ish, no signs of re-planning
- Plans should be revisited regularly based on what actually happened in the previous sprint
- For later in the project, milestones don't need exact dates, but big chunks of work should be agreed on
Project tracking feedback
- Estimates exist but no evidence we use them to improve planning
- Need to track estimated vs actual time and use that to adjust the next sprint
- Mentors agreed to require time tracking — Clockify will be proposed (Toggl was used before)
- Mentor is fine with us just using GitHub's estimated/actual fields if Clockify is too much
- Decisions in the presentation should be supported by numbers from our own data
Context and requirements feedback
- Goals like "increase user engagement" need to be SMART, especially measurable
- Need a metric the team can actually influence and use to make decisions
- Anna's business goals are long-term; we need a derived team-level goal for the next 3-4 months
- Examples: tracking number of event attendees, signups through the app — but only if our decisions are tied to those numbers
Quality management and architecture
- These were our weakest sections
- Quality attributes presented (e.g. availability) felt artificial — they should be agreed with the client
- ASE course was supposed to give us a quality plan template, but it hasn't started yet — flag this with DOE
- Approach: in ASE you list the maximum possible quality activities; for the industrial project pick the most efficient minimum subset
Action items
- Mentor will share a document with what each practice area should cover in the presentation
- We can ask remaining feedback questions in chat or schedule a follow-up next week