Wha can mak an ADR?

Consider areas sic as specific fowk, or specific roles, or specific teams, or specific departments; an consider an aw if there's fowk, or roles, or teams, or departments that can commission an ADR, meanin they request ane that somebody else will screive.

Example answer: Onie person in oor organisation wha haes read the architectur decisioun record README page can propose an ADR, meanin the person can stairt screivin it, an share it wi the team.

Whit justifies raisin an ADR?

Consider areas sic as yer organisation's team weys o warkin, yer saftware system structur, cross-team coordination, lang-term maintainability, external interfaces, wha ye want tae benefit, an the like.

Example answer: We want tae mak an ADR whan we want future developers tae unnerstaun the “why” o whit we're daein.

Whit justifies no raisin an ADR?

Consider areas sic as decisiouns that are no aboot architectur, or are wee sic as minimal-risk or self-contained or single-developer, or are awready fully coverit elsewhaur sic as bi staundarts or policies or documentation, or are temporary sic as warkarounds or proofs o concepts or experiments.

Example answer: We want tae skip an ADR whan a decisioun is limitit in scope an time an risk an cost, or is awready coverit elsewhaur.

Whit is the lifecycle o an ADR?

Consider areas sic as the creation process, research process, decisionin process, implementation process, an sunsettin process. Consider hoo tae track the ADR lifecycle ower time, sic as hoo tae muive the ADR frae ae state tae the neist state, an an aw hoo tae communicate this tae stakeholders.

Example answer: We want an ADR tae hae five lifecycle stages: Initiatin → Researchin → Evaluatin → Implementin → Maintainin → Sunsettin.

Whit are criteria for lifecycle steps o an ADR?

Consider areas sic as acceptance criteria for an ADR, meanin hoo dae ye ken it's guid eneuch tae progress frae ae lifecycle step tae the neist? Is the problem clearly articulatit? Hae the alternatives been consideret? Are trade-offs weel-eneuch unnerstuid an documentit? Is aw relevant context in place? Are aw relevant stakeholders involved? Haes aw feedback been incorporatit?

Example answer: We want an ADR tae be votit on bi stakeholders whan the active team haes 1) completit their research, 2) completit their evaluation, 3) publisht the ADR proposal tae the stakeholders wi a request for comments an a timebox o ae week, 4) aw stakeholder comments hae been incorporatit an addressed.

Whit roles an responsibilities interact wi an ADR?

Consider roles sic as proposer, researcher, evaluator, reviewer, approver, maintainer, an the like. Consider responsibilities sic as communication wi stakeholders, ensurin expectations are met, sharin on the website or intranet, an reviewin the wark periodically an especially whan relevant chynges happen.

Example answer: We want each ADR tae aye hae a primary contact person, secondary contact person, an accountable team; thir are responsible for communications, publications, maintenance, periodic review at least ance per year, an eventual sunsettin as needit.

Hoo daes governance interact wi an ADR?

Consider areas sic as yer organisation's weys o warkin, onie special compliance needs sic as for legal aspects or human resource aspects, hoo ye want tae haunle consensus versus conflict versus escalation. Are there areas or fowk or teams that can hae mair influence than ithers regardin an ADR, sic as bein able tae approve it, or vote on it, or veto it?

Example answer: The governance o an ADR is in this priority order: the CEO, the CTO, the CLO, the team that implements an ADR, the experts on the team that ken maist aboot the AD. Naebody else haes governance unless described in the ADR.

Whit principles interact wi an ADR?

Consider areas sic as yer organisation's weys o warkin that include muivin quickly versus muivin slowly, for decisioun consensus versus decisioun conflict, an for risk preferences versus safety preferences, public discussioun versus private discussioun, an the like.

Example answer: We uise the leadership principles o bias for action, disagree-an-commit, 70% estimates are guid eneuch for easily-reversable easily-isolatable decisiouns, an public weys o warkin wi the exception o confidential information as described in oor organisation's confidentiality agreement.