Do you think renaming objects in a model would take a significant amount of time? It doesn't *sound* like a big deal, on the surface. If not, then just do it as you work through other items.
Did the team know of the naming conventions required to go to prod? If so, then why didn't they follow the required conventions the first time?
If the team didn't have that information, then why not? Could be a communication breakdown in the organization, or a lack of collaboration with the architecture team at the start of the project. These are not the PO's problem. Non-functional requirements and organizational standards are the technical team's responsibility.
You may not be able to demo this directly, but you can certainly explain the situation to the PO. I'll bet he isn't stupid.
--- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, Nicolas Mohamed <nicolasmohamed@ ...> wrote:
> I don't know if it's ok or not, but it happens and that's the main point
> We (as a team) defined for this current sprint a task called "rename objects
> in the entity framework model". We did this because we have an architecture
> team which approves (or not) our code.
> If the code is not approved, it won't go to prod => PO will never see all
> the business value
> ¿Should we eliminate this task? ¿Should we do it silently consuming hours
> from other tasks? The PO does not even know it exists and we cannot show it
> in a demo because is not something visible.
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
> www.unavisiondistin ta.blogspot. com
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM, William Berger <Bill.Berger@ ...>wrote:
> > Reading this post gives the distinct impression that you perceive there
> > are rules to how Scrum works. My understanding is that there are guidelines
> > and principles, not hard-n-fast rules. I believe Scrum is not intended to be
> > a playbook with rules to run a scrum by, but rather a set of guidelines to
> > be considered as the scrum team figures out how to most effectively build
> > the software functionality the PO deems most desirable (and 'pays' for) for
> > any given sprint.
> > So, I'd first recommend that:
> > > "Is it possible, as a scrumteam, to plan in our own stories,
> > > even if the product owner disagrees?"
> > is a moot point for this forum. The implicit answer is "Of course it's
> > possible" from a Scrum philosophy perspective.
> > But I suspect that's not the intent of the question. You cannot get
> > "advice" from this group that will enable you to bypass your own internal
> > politics. It seems to me you're looking for permission to do something your
> > team deems appropriate for more effective software creation but haven't
> > gotten the 'go-ahead' to do it for whatever reason (including not having
> > asked yet).
> > If your workday is governed solely by what backlog items exist in your
> > sprint backlog, then this is really a question for your PO. Bottom line, you
> > need to convince the PO that taking the time (possibly incrementally over a
> > few sprints) to make adjustments to your team's development process can have
> > positive benefits for the PO's investment to "allow" it to happen.
> > Of course, there is the philosophy of self-organization in Scrum. If your
> > organization supports self-organization deeply enough, I would suggest you
> > need not get permission - that the team decides what workday efforts are
> > appropriate to complete a sprint once the sprint backlog has been decided.
> > So, you could simply have the team agree to fewer backlog items and roll the
> > process improvement into the development process (again, possibly
> > incrementally) until complete. Your team velocity may take a hit, but then
> > again, so does the speed of a sailboat as you adjust your sails to take
> > better advantage of atmospheric conditions.
> > Bill Berger