Initiatives above epics
Created
Decision (2026-10-08, me, in a brainstorm with my planning agent): work is planned under four initiatives, outcomes I own, instead of a pile of small epics. The problem: too many small epics with unfinished stories, things stalling while they waited on me, and work moving faster than it was thought out. A second model reviewed the design before I approved it.
| # | Decided |
|---|---|
| 1 | Four initiatives above the epics, ranked: Serenity works for me, a public presence, a homelab I can rely on, and owning my data. The initiative is the intention; it is what matters |
| 2 | One wiki page per initiative and a label on every epic under it, on any board; fixes and upkeep carry none |
| 3 | A brainstorm with me once per initiative; the next epic under an agreed initiative I am told about, not asked; fixes go straight to work |
| 4 | Stalls: agents first try to get past a stall on their own; only what truly needs me, such as a decision, is batched for me |
| 5 | My remaining steps go to one dedicated list with permanent step numbers, done when I have time |
| 6 | A crew starts only on scope that can finish without me. Slot order: fixes and unblocking first, then my ranking |
| 7 | Status reports lead with the initiative table |
Alternatives
- Flat epics as before: what produced the fragmentation.
- A parent task per initiative: can’t hold epics from other boards (owning my data spans three).
- A board per initiative: moves everything, stops matching where systems live, and is heavy for a first version.
What would change it
A fifth outcome I name, a ranking change, or the labels proving too light (then a parent task or a board per initiative).