... From a scientific perspective there is a lot wrong with that statement. As you are making a lot of assumptions, around what somone has as a predefinedMessage 1 of 71 , Jul 1, 2008View SourceOn Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Joseph Little <jhlittle@...> wrote:
> +1 on Ron's pithy statement.From a scientific perspective there is a lot wrong with that
> 1. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
> 2. AND...words have meaning to people. If you call a horse a donkey,
> some people will think that that animal is perfect for donkey work but
> not right for horse work.
statement. As you are making a lot of assumptions, around what somone
has as a predefined langugae model and how meaning relates to it. A
Project Manager is a Project Manager and almost everyone in our
industry has a perceived understanding of what a Project Manager does
and what some of the traits are. I am not talking about the
exceptions, I am talking about the norm.
Just because I call a Project Manager agile, does not change the main
perception of the pharse. It is very similar to saying Horse and then
calling it a white horse and just because it is a white horse it is no
longer suitable for bareback rinding. Because horses are suitable for
barback rinding, people (in their naivite) will infere that a white
horse is suitle for it as well.
So I do not quite understand what you are trying to describe with your
statement? Most Porject Managers with a classic mindset are not
suitable to be Scrum Masters or Coaches. That is exactly why there are
books, mind set changing ideas and CSM classes.
Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
Hello, Robert. On Wednesday, July 2, 2008, at 11:19:55 AM, you ... OK. Why do /you/ think Scrum works. ... Interesting. What do you see in the definition ofMessage 71 of 71 , Jul 2, 2008View SourceHello, Robert. On Wednesday, July 2, 2008, at 11:19:55 AM, you
> Your earlier message said:OK. Why do /you/ think Scrum works.
>> Scrum works, in my opinion, because it requires two things:
>> 1. Produce Done-Done software on a regular basis;
>> 2. Remove every obstacle to doing item 1.
> I'm not sure I agree. In particular, it seems to suggest an absolute
> focus on
> software, and it seems to suggest seeing other things as obstacles to that.
> I think an important advantage of scrum, and other agileInteresting. What do you see in the definition of Scrum that leads
> processes, is that they involve software development in a wider
> context, and in that wider context the development of software is
> unlikely to be the priority.
you to believe it is not focused on software? A reference would be
> So the advantage for software development is that the process isSo that whole "Agile Software Development with Scrum" thing was just
> more likely to lead to software that helps in that larger context.
> This means it is important for everyone to realise that software
> development is not the ultimate goal, and that things that might
> seem like obstacles may in fact show aspects of the wider context
> that need to be better understood and may in fact change the
> nature of the software development.
what ... a typo?
I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's;
I will not reason and compare; my business is to create. --William Blake