52 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
52 lines
2.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: process
|
|
project: fidelity
|
|
status: active
|
|
updated: 2026-04-17
|
|
tags:
|
|
- process
|
|
- fidelity
|
|
---
|
|
# Communication Rules
|
|
|
|
## Goal
|
|
|
|
Make technical communication precise enough for manager updates, Jira notes, standups, and cross-team messages.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Required Structure
|
|
|
|
When the format fits, prefer:
|
|
|
|
1. Context
|
|
2. Observation
|
|
3. Action
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Fidelity-Specific Rules
|
|
|
|
- Always clarify authenticated vs non-authenticated when behavior depends on it.
|
|
- Always separate external issues from regressions.
|
|
- Always state reproducibility and scope.
|
|
- For standups, report the previous workday context, not blindly the prior calendar day.
|
|
- On Mondays, use Friday's work context unless a later prior day has Mattermost activity.
|
|
- If the previous calendar day has no project activity because of weekend, holiday, or OOO, use the latest prior day with Mattermost activity.
|
|
- For standups, when a Jira item has multiple concrete updates, use one top-level `JIRA-ID - Title` bullet and indented markdown sub-bullets instead of repeating the same Jira line.
|
|
- When a flow/page shorthand could be ambiguous, prefer the real flow identifier and page name from `vault/03-context/workstreams/flow-page-references.md`.
|
|
- For standups that may also be sent to Teams, prefer plain audience-friendly wording over internal implementation shorthand; avoid terms like `fallback` unless the audience already has the necessary context.
|
|
- When a release is waiting on approvals or pipeline movement, make the concurrent work explicit so the update does not imply idle waiting.
|
|
- Avoid vague phrasing such as:
|
|
- "same behavior"
|
|
- "looks fixed"
|
|
- "working as expected"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Historical Signals From Slack
|
|
|
|
- Jeff repeatedly requested polished, explicit wording for PR descriptions, story descriptions, and cross-team messages.
|
|
- Historical Slack threads show that message quality changed how quickly stories were approved or understood.
|
|
- Explicit language mattered most when communicating root cause, ownership boundaries, or whether a report was a confirmed regression.
|