Planning Poker VS Commit Together by Github

• Promotes Team Collaboration
  Planning Poker encourages team members to collaborate and share their perspectives on the complexity and effort required for each task, fostering better communication and understanding among the group.
• Reduces Anchoring Bias
  By having team members independently select their estimates before sharing, Planning Poker minimizes the risk of anchoring bias, where the first estimate unduly influences subsequent ones.
• Improves Estimation Accuracy
  Through discussion and consensus-building, Planning Poker often results in more accurate estimates compared to traditional methods, as it considers diverse viewpoints and expertise.
• Encourages Active Participation
  Since every team member is required to provide an estimate, Planning Poker ensures that everyone actively contributes, increasing engagement and ownership of the estimation process.
• Identifies Uncertainties Early
  The wide discrepancies in estimates can highlight areas of uncertainty or misunderstanding about the task, prompting early discussions and clarification.
• Facilitates Learning
  Team members can learn from each other's insights and approaches during discussions, leading to a deeper understanding of the project and improving individual estimation skills.

Possible disadvantages

• Time-Consuming
  Planning Poker can be a lengthy process, especially for larger teams or when there are significant discrepancies in initial estimates, which may slow down the planning phase.
• Requires Skilled Facilitation
  Effective facilitation is needed to keep the discussions focused and productive, and without it, the process can become chaotic or dominated by louder voices.
• Potential for Groupthink
  Despite efforts to minimize bias, there is still a risk of groupthink, where the desire for consensus outweighs the presentation of dissenting opinions or novel ideas.
• May Not Suit All Teams
  This method may not be suitable for all teams, especially those with significant differences in experience levels, as less experienced members may feel intimidated or undervalued.
• Overemphasis on Consensus
  The focus on reaching a consensus may lead to compromises that don't necessarily reflect the most accurate or realistic estimates, sometimes diluting valuable input.
• Difficulty in Estimating Complex Tasks
  For highly complex or innovative tasks where uncertainty is high, estimating accurately can be challenging, leading to frustration or misleading estimates.

• Enhanced Collaboration
  Commit Together allows multiple authors to be credited in a single commit, which fosters a more collaborative environment and ensures everyone involved receives recognition for their contributions.
• Improved Code Review Process
  With multiple authors clearly listed, reviewers can better understand who contributed to which parts of the code, facilitating more directed questions and discussions.
• Accountability
  By attributing every change to the respective author, teams can easily track who made specific changes, which helps in accountability and understanding the history of a project.
• Efficiency in Pair Programming
  When pair programming, both developers can be credited for their combined effort, streamlining the process of sharing code ownership during collaborative sessions.

Possible disadvantages

• Complex Commit History
  Having multiple authors for a single commit may lead to a more complex commit history, making it harder to pinpoint individual contributions over time.
• Potential Workflow Conflicts
  Teams that are used to single-author commits may experience workflow conflicts or require adjustments in practices to accommodate multi-author contributions.
• Initial Setup Overhead
  Learners and new users might face a learning curve or require additional setup to understand and correctly implement the multi-author commit feature.
• Tooling Compatibility
  Some third-party tools and extensions might not fully support or display multi-author commits, leading to inconsistencies in those environments.

Understanding Planning Poker

More videos

No Commit Together by Github videos yet. You could help us improve this page by suggesting one.

• Reaching consensus and empowering discussions in your technical team

  Planning Poker can serve as a tool to poll the team for certain topics, and get to know their opinions quickly while empowering discussions. - Source: dev.to / over 4 years ago

• Do you use planning poker in scrum?

  I have used planning poker at Boeing, Disney and Liberty Mutual. I am not sure how you would get team understanding of the issues without a tool like planning poker. I use planningpoker.com because the team members don't have to make... Source: about 5 years ago

• Ask HN: Do you rewrite pull requests?

  There is "Co-authored-by" which is supported on GitHub [1] and seems appropriate if the maintainer is basing the solution on someone's code. [1] https://github.blog/2018-01-29-commit-together-with-co-authors/. - Source: Hacker News / over 4 years ago