Re: change item description during sprint plus measure teams by velocity
- Measuring one team's velocity against another one is EXTREMELY error
prone, IMO, and as such, quite invalid. Just forget about that piece,
as it's a non-starter and ridiculously inaccurate. I think Mike
Cohn's book has some material on how no 2 agile teams operate on the
same point system and definition of "done". He also hits it again
when mgmt stupidly tries to measure or evaluate individual velocity,
which is equally ridiculous.
Wrt your other problem, I hope you would retrospect and understand
that, from now on...
a) You would specify the story in greater detail, to include not only
the OS, but also the exact versions of the OS you plan to deliver on.
b) You should make sure you get the acceptance criteria up front, and
have your PO do that. In other words, was the acceptance criteria,
"functionality must pass tests on all supported platforms" or was it
"functionality must pass tests on OSr1, OSr2, OSr3." Some teams do a
"preview" meeting a few days before the upcoming sprint to help
identify dirty details and allow time to resolve these kind of
acceptance test questions before the sprint planning meeting. You
might consider that also.
c) You should counsel your PO that a story is not DONE until ALL
ACCEPTANCE tests have passed, and thus a story shouldn't be removed
from the product backlog unless 1) it has passed according to your def
of done or 2) the story non longer needs to be implemented.
The idea that a particular story could be considered "done" by Team A
and "not done" by Team B seems fishy to me. Team A should be working
on story1A and Team B should be working on story1B -- as such, they
would probably come off of *different* product backlogs and thus
should be managed completely diffferently.
It sounds like your PO and organization is lacking some fundamental
knowledge about Scrum. Have you all had any training, by chance?
I don't mean to offend, just expressing my thoughts and opinions.
--- In email@example.com, "kaverjody" <yi.xu@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ron Jeffries
> <ronjeffries@> wrote:
> > I don't agree. The second is pernicious.
> Me too. Hard for me to write down the word "should".
> > Card, conversation, confirmation.
> Could you give more details about those suggestions?
> We (the team I was scrum master) saw some items we marked as not DONE
> was DONE in the product backlog, in next sprint planning. We said
> their tests passed against OS r2, but r3 was not available. PO marked
> as DONE, explained as when r3 ready just do regression testing ... I
> think PO was considering the motivation issue, but I disagree to mix
> it with Done Definition.
> Even though the r3 may be quite stable that all tests just pass, it
> doesn't mean we could mark those items as DONE, coz the customer can
> not use them on expected OS, which is the business value for those
> In this aspect, "Card, conversation, confirmation" are useful, but may
> not be the Mr. Right for the problem.
> - Kaveri