> The team would need to sign off on that PR before any "work" was done. Can anyone describe that in any way other than collaboration?
That sounds like an ad-hoc planning for a single issue, which you could also just do for a subset of the open issues, every, lets say, 2 weeks. And so we invented SCRUM.
> That sounds like an ad-hoc planning for a single issue, which you could also just do for a subset of the open issues, every, lets say, 2 weeks.
So you'd require the whole team to spend time on matters that interested only a subset, and you'd do this in a blocking way rather than asynchronously? What possible benefit would that have?
Then your team is too big. If you have more than, say, 7 people in a planning, your team is too large.
And it's never really asynchronous. It's more honest to block everyone who might have input. Planning the effort (points) also helps see if anyone thinks its more complex than it is, which can reveal issues before implementation begins..
It's not perfect, but if you're gonna do planning, just do it properly.
> And it's never really asynchronous. It's more honest to block everyone who might have input.
How? Even if you decide you need everyone to look at it, letting everyone check it off asynchronously is more respectful of people's time and concentration. Maybe occasionally there's a big difference in people's assessment and you need to have a synchronous discussion, but there's no need to pessimize the common case for the sake of the rare case.
> It's not perfect, but if you're gonna do planning, just do it properly.
What's "properly"? Doing your planning in a more difficult, time-consuming way might feel virtuous, but it's not actually beneficial.
That sounds like an ad-hoc planning for a single issue, which you could also just do for a subset of the open issues, every, lets say, 2 weeks. And so we invented SCRUM.