43864Re: Confusion about Scrum
- Dec 31, 2009(responding to Tobias)
> If Scrum is as consistent in its requirements as is oftenGood point. I usually use the phrase "cannot have anything
> claimed (i.e. cannot have things added or removed)...
removed and still be called Scrum" because one can still remove
things from Scrum and get something that works, and one always
must add something to get something that works. However, the
goal for most of us is to get something that works well, or
to get something that works better.
> ... but by my reckoning both go beyond the essentialAs I said in my previous post, I haven't looked recently, but
> framework of Scrum, and into the realm of implementation.
shall take your word for it.
> ... I have been intrigued by what "pure Scrum" might be...Hmm, potentially another contender for the title of "right" Scrum?
> to discover what the "abstract Scrum class" might look like...
> I attempt to remove all that isn't essential to a true Scrum
> implementation, and find that what is left is in fact very minimal
> indeed. And yet (I believe) it captures the true spirit of Scrum
> without once telling people how to do anything.
> My article is a first draft at creating an abstract Scrum class. No
> doubt it can be improved. The challenge is to improve it, not by
> adding, but by removing :-)
I'm all in favour of improving by removing though.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>