Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Backlog of technical tasks?

Expand Messages
  • Kane Mar
    ... responsible. One person, the PO, is accountable. Isn t this just a re-arrangement of my own words ... when projects go bad, I believe it s everyone s
    Message 1 of 55 , May 1 5:27 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Mitch Lacey <mitch.lacey@...> wrote:
      > Kane, don't mix responsibility with accountability. Everyone (PO/Team/SM) is
      responsible. One person, the PO, is accountable.

      Isn't this just a re-arrangement of my own words "... when projects go bad, I believe it's
      everyone's responsibility"?

      I think we're in violent agreement, unless the same words mean something different
      (which they very well could do ... low bandwidth means of communication and all that).

      Best regards,
      Kane Mar
      b: http://KaneMar.com
      b: http://SeattleScrum.org
      w: http://www.Danube.com


      > On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Kane Mar
      <kane_sfo@...<mailto:kane_sfo%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
      > > This is something that I don't agree with because, when projects go bad, I
      > > believe it's everyone's responsibility
      > >
      >
      > That's just not true. I like the analogy of the Team as a Ferrari and
      > the PO as a driver. If the PO drives the Ferrari off the cliff, who
      > is to "blame"? OK, the Team is an animate entity, with members who
      > can speak up, but the fact remains that the Team can make their point
      > about technical debt until they are blue in the face, but if the PO
      > purposely forbids the Team from doing what it takes to reduce the
      > technical debt, then there is a lot more blame to go to the PO - if
      > not *all* the blame.
      >
      > -- Stephen
      >
    • Michael James
      ... Yes, and there s really no contradiction between these approaches once we see the Sprint Planning Meeting as a good faith negotiation. Normal technical
      Message 55 of 55 , May 4 3:45 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Jeppe N. Madsen" <jeppe@...> wrote:

        > I've been skeptical about putting technical tasks on the backlog for
        > many of the same reasons listed in this thread. I think we should
        > make "the world a better place" one step at a time, by refactoring the
        > code as it's touched due to new requirements.

        Yes, and there's really no contradiction between these
        approaches once we see the Sprint Planning Meeting
        as a good faith negotiation.

        Normal technical debt should be paid off through
        the definition of "done" for product feature stories.
        Things like this might include refactoring away
        duplicate code, complex conditional logic, long
        modules, nested "catch" blocks, poorly named
        methods and classes, normal database schema
        changes, normal upgrades to third-party
        libraries....

        > If there really are technical debt that hinders
        > progress, this is an impediment.

        Yes, when progress on multiple fronts is impeded
        by severe fundamental underlying debt issues
        (often at the infrastructure level, like platform
        changes, major database changes, major library
        changes) it may be useful for the team to make
        it visible in the product backlog as a step toward
        breaking the repayment work into manageable
        pieces. Anyone can add items to the Product
        Backlog.

        Of course we still expect some feature delivery
        every Sprint.

        --mj
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.