Event planning application database schema

I am planning to develop an Event Planning Application. Currently I’m in the stage of planning the app structure, for example database schemas. Basically there will be two kinds of users:

The event planner: Has access to a dashboard, list of guests, etc.

The event guest: One guest is assigned to one event. Can login and answer questions, access photos from the event

Now my question: What is the best way to store the guests regarding security, scalability and maintainability. Is it ok to store all guests in one single database table ‘guests’ with a column ‘event_id’ or is it better to create a table for every event and have multiple tables with guests like ‘event_1_guests’, ‘event_2_guests’, and so on.

Holding the Scrum events (planning, review, retrospective) in one working day

I have a question regarding scrum events that are all held in one day?

For example:

In the morning (review + retrospective) and in the afternoon another one (planning).

Currently, I am working in a two days split scrum events and downside of that is that team is complaining that they are ‘losing’ their time and they are not effective, maybe it is better to have it all in one day?

Is it better for the team to have it all in one day?

Suggest if my planning is a good Idea to sell in English/Spanish Market!

I'm digital productor of a online Tool and want expand to English/Spanish Digital Market, and want know what is the best way?

My doubts are:

In my country (Brazil) the domain tool is in Portuguese language: e.g: "ferramentademarqueteiros.com" (that is no real domain)

But I need a "International domain" to translate for English/Spanish, like:

marketertool.com/en (ENGLISH VSL)
marketertool.com/es (ESPAÑOL VSL)

and the Panel to Login:

en.marketertool.com (ENGLISH PANEL)…

Suggest if my planning is a good Idea to sell in English/Spanish Market!

Planning a sprint when you don’t know the next tasks

How should sprint tasks be planned when you won’t know the next task to be done until the current task is complete? For instance, consider the case of optimizing a program’s performance. Until you fix the current bottleneck (which may take much less than a single sprint), it’s difficult to figure out what the next bottleneck will be or how long it will take to fix that next bottleneck.

How should you do sprint planning when you don’t have visibility into tasks beyond the current one?

Search vs planning in artificial intelligence

I m studying artificial intelligence in Russell & Norvig book. We did a search and planning part that for me is the same (at least on the rappresentation). I wish know that there is a difference between this two technique, but I didn’t hit.

Looking online i found this resource: Planning and Search

where say “The main difference between search and planning is the representation of states”

Possible that the difference between this two technique is just the representation?

Scaled Agile Framework, PI Planning & Iteration Plans [on hold]

A read of the SAFe PI Planning documentation starts strong with clarifying that PI Planning produces milestones, features and dependencies and places these on the program board. In contrast, “Iteration Plans” or user stories are not listed as an output of PI Planning.

However, towards the end of that same link it makes a passing comment of when PI Planning completes the teams “take PI objectives, iteration plans, and risks back to their regular work area.” Furthermore, the SAFe documentation for Iteration Planning makes the following comment:

In SAFe, iteration planning is a refinement of the level of detail and an adjustment of the initial iteration plans created during Agile Release Train (ART) PI planning.

This SAFe commentary is much too thin to draw conclusions about what was the activity and what was the goal of creating iteration plans during PI Planning.

My interpretation is that any team might create loose iteration plans during PI Planning, but only with the goal of estimating when they will complete a given feature(s). In other words, such loose iteration planning (if it happened at all) is a team-internal scratch-pad that would not be evaluated or published. Accordingly the program board would not be decorated with user stories that result from such loose iteration planning (and in general the program board simply does not have user stories on it).

In my interpretation, no agile coach would tell my team “your scratch-pad iteration plans are insufficient, you must create more.”

In contrast, I recently encountered an organization whose interpretation of SAFe is as follows:

  • SAFe PI Planning requires or expects the activity of Iteration Planning that intentionally covers each and every sprint of the upcoming Program Increment (which is 3 months in their case).
  • The user stories that are created from this comprehensive whole-PI “Iteration Planning,” are placed onto the program board (as a backbone of creating dependencies with features, etcetera).
  • At the end of PI Planning, if the entire Program Increment does not have end-to-end Iteration Plans established for a given team, then that misaligned team must ASAP finish a full suite of Iteration Plans for the entire PI.

In this latter view, subsequent sprint planning for each iteration involves merely making adjustments to the sprints if needed – because otherwise all sprints of the PI have already been planned.

Please note that the above bulleted premises are not seen as customizations of SAFe, but rather they believe it represents the authentic interpretation of SAFe.

I’d like to know if SAFe provides any additional guidance that would clarify which interpretation is “correct.” To me, which interpretation is chosen is a choice between genuinely following an Agile methodology versus following a practice that is half-way waterfall. However, my question is not “what do you prefer,” as what I’m really after is a more official or authentic interpretation of SAFe on this matter.


Is there a reason to use specifically fibonacci sequence in planning poker?

I’ve noted that fibonacci sequence is quite popular in planning poker, but is it a reason for that particular sequence? Wouldn’t for example powers of 2 work equally well?

Both sequences are more or less exponential while fibonacci uses a factor of the golden ratio (approximately 1.6) so fibonacci has somewhat higher resolution and would allow to express more accurate estimates.

Is there for example any evidence that people tend to be able to estimate accurate enough to motivate the higher resolution? And if there is wouldn’t a even finer scale be motivated?

cheap multi agent path planning algorithms

I am trying to make a tower defence game where some critters are trying to make their ways through a 2D grid-like obstacle course. The idea is these critters cannot walk into the obstacles or into each other during their path, and they would like to get to the other side as soon as possible.

I just need a cheap, not-optimal solution that can path all the agents from one side of the map to another, moving in the grid (up-down-left-right) directions while not walking into each other nor into the obstacles.

I am not wanting an optimal solution, just one that looks reasonably greedily optimal would be nice (i.e. not like not moving the 2nd agent without completing the path on the first agent, etc).

I’m thinking about something with potential fields with a little bit of A* is as much as I am willing to compute. If there’s anything simple to implement I’d be happy to know ! !