we have 47 active stories that have no story points: https://jira.lsstcorp.org/issues/?filter=14012. I’d argue it is useful to always set it, (set it to 0 or 0.1 if it is trivial). Otherwise, I worry we might end up forgetting to set SPs for some larger stories and not catching it.
Several of these are KPM measurements corresponding to the v11 release which are waiting for sign-off from @mjuric. Given that release is long shipped and the KPMs published, I think it’s appropriate to simply mark them as done unless Mario objects.
It can be unclear whether a particular story relating to the Science Pipelines is an AP or a DRP problem. In that case, we often end up with a ticket labelled “Science Pipelines” but not assigned to a particular team; see e.g. DM-5087. Stories thus labelled end up on the Science Pipelines backlog, so the first team to have some spare resources can pick them up.
As of May 2015 (has it been changed since? I don’t have a record of it), Kevin would import stories with 0 SPs into PMCS and given them a weight of zero; stories with null SPs would not be imported at all. In other words, there is some semantic difference here. In practice, I’m not sure that difference is worth preserving, but this is no simply a matter of JIRA preference.
I’d personally be against making it compulsory to set the SP estimate on a story, because I think recording issues should be as frictionless as possible and I worry that making people write down SP values for work outside their area of expertise will put them off. I’m also not sure that it’s worth T/CAM time coming up with SPs for stories that we’re not imminently planning to work on.
It can be unclear whether a particular story relating to the Science Pipelines is an AP or a DRP problem. In that case, we often end up with a ticket labelled “Science Pipelines” but not assigned to a particular team; see e.g. DM-5087.
I guess it is because two teams work closely on one component, “afw”, right?. If that is the main reason it is unclear who to assign a story, I’d propose we use the default owner of the involved component (looks like “Lead:John Swinbank” for afw), and then as it was said in RFC-145, we’d reassign when/as it makes sense. Would anyone have a problem with that?