First of all, you want your registry to be greatly simplified , otherwise the overhead of maintaining the registry will cease to be used by people and spend more time than the actual correction of the technical debt that it was intended to solve .....
If you still decide to continue, I would suggest keeping a simple register, which is a flat file / simple Google database / spreadsheet with the following fields:
- Module / Component Name
- A description of what needs to be fixed (you may have a list of categories, but I think this also requires a single-line text interface)
- Estimated correction time in days (I would tend to insist on whole numbers of days, otherwise people will tend to start logging trifles trifles).
- Which developer incurred debt (and provided an estimate of the commit time)
- In which project was the debt incurred (for any consequences, the project manager is responsible)
The rules are as follows:
- Developers are expected to be transparent regarding technical debt. If the developer needs technical backlog due to the pressure of the project, the developer should add this to the logbook with the estimated correction time.
- Project managers are responsible for the technical debt that they launch (i.e. do they force developers to accept shortcuts?). They should be able to justify a sound business case for the total debt and suggest what needs to be done to fix it.
- If technical debt is not specified, then it is expected that the code will be of high quality and any relevant code review will take place. If technical debt is noted, then the developer receives a “pass” for everything that was noted (a review may instead be useful to take into account the accuracy of the registration of the debt and ideas about what needs to be done to fix it).
- Developers are expected to give a fair estimate of the fix time. If they say that it will take two days to reorganize the architecture, then they should not be surprised if they are given two days to fix it at a later time ....
I think that this approach will create good momentum in general - developers should be transparent and think about how to solve technical debt, project managers / business leaders should make compromises, but it is clear that debt costs are their responsibility, the best developers and architects will gain prestige for completing complex projects, as well as under the control of technical debt.
mikera
source share