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

Re: Follow up to the recent trademark incident

Expand Messages
  • Paul Oldfield
    (responding to Alan) ... Hmm... okay, but it worries me that the SA don t seem to have addressed the root causes of the last similar event. They don t
    Message 1 of 13 , May 1, 2009
      (responding to Alan)

      >> ...I admit I was initially skeptical whether we could make
      >> this work, but I feel much more confident that this was a
      >> mistake across the board that we can all learn from, and
      >> work to figure out how to keep from happening.
      >
      > Inspect. Adapt. Very good, gentlemen! I'm anxious to see
      > what comes out of your efforts. Thank you both for working
      > the issues.

      Hmm... okay, but it worries me that the SA don't seem to
      have addressed the root causes of the last similar event.

      They don't represent the whole Scrum user community, and if
      they want to, then they should represent us, rather than
      trying to muscle in on us.

      Personally, I'd prefer they spent their funds helping Scrum
      user groups rather than persecuting ones that don't toe
      *their* (???) line, but if that's how they want to spend
      their funds, we could help them and set up loads more
      scrum user groups so they can spend their funds faster
      (or learn better ways?) :-) It seems weird that somebody
      can register a name that others have already been using;
      surely that's a law designed to benefit lawyers? Well,
      let the lawyers benefit from SA funds if SA want to play
      silly.

      Paul Oldfield
    • Alan Dayley
      ... Many, many times I have watched two engineers discuss strongly (argue?) opposing opinions only to eventually find that they agree and were simply coming to
      Message 2 of 13 , May 1, 2009
        On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Paul Oldfield <PaulOldfield1@...> wrote:
        >>
        >> Inspect. Adapt. Very good, gentlemen! I'm anxious to see
        >> what comes out of your efforts. Thank you both for working
        >> the issues.
        >
        > Hmm... okay, but it worries me that the SA don't seem to
        > have addressed the root causes of the last similar event.
        >
        > They don't represent the whole Scrum user community, and if
        > they want to, then they should represent us, rather than
        > trying to muscle in on us.
        >
        > Personally, I'd prefer they spent their funds helping Scrum
        > user groups rather than persecuting ones that don't toe
        > *their* (???) line, but if that's how they want to spend
        > their funds, we could help them and set up loads more
        > scrum user groups so they can spend their funds faster
        > (or learn better ways?) :-) It seems weird that somebody
        > can register a name that others have already been using;
        > surely that's a law designed to benefit lawyers? Well,
        > let the lawyers benefit from SA funds if SA want to play
        > silly.

        Many, many times I have watched two engineers discuss strongly
        (argue?) opposing opinions only to eventually find that they agree and
        were simply coming to the conclusion from different points of view.
        Or, see strong discussions dissolve away to nothing when base
        assumptions are corrected. I usually don't see this happen with me,
        not because I do it less but because I don't see it when I'm in the
        middle of it.

        Here is my thinking of Scrum Alliance actions based on the assumption
        of positive intent on their part.

        In this case, I am willing to allow that people at the Scrum Alliance
        assumed this service mark protection is a good thing because their
        business experience or advice received indicated such. To them it may
        have been obviously good and reasonable. Their assumptions have now
        been corrected. (Boy, howdy was it corrected!)

        Now, from this friction, we (the community) and they (Scrum Alliance)
        have learned better how to work with one another. Our work together
        can be stronger for the experience, if we make it so.

        Form. Storm. Norm. Perform. A cycle that repeats over and over.
        We're hopefully coming out of a storm now. Relationships can be bumpy
        but many times are worth getting over the bumps.

        Inspect. Adapt. Get better and better.

        As to the "last similar event," I am ignorant of that at this moment.
        Not that I want it rehashed, whatever it was.

        Alan
      • Ilja Preuß
        Hi Alan, ... I don t think that happens just by itself. And frankly, I don t see any indication that someone at the SA is willing to take responsibility for
        Message 3 of 13 , May 2, 2009
          Hi Alan,

          > Now, from this friction, we (the community) and they (Scrum Alliance)
          > have learned better how to work with one another.  Our work together
          > can be stronger for the experience, if we make it so.

          I don't think that happens just by itself. And frankly, I don't see
          any indication that someone at the SA is willing to take
          responsibility for what happened, or that someone even thinks
          something would better have been done differently, or should be done
          differently in the future.

          Perhaps it is happening, but if it is, it seems to be happening behind
          closed doors. Which doesn't help me gain confidence. In fact, it would
          kind of show me that what seems to be the most important lesson to me,
          hasn't been learned.

          But that's just me.

          Cheers, Ilja
        • howardsublett
          llja, Perhaps you missed this post above in the thread from yesterday: Re: Follow up to the recent trademark incident Good chat with Cory this morning and we
          Message 4 of 13 , May 2, 2009
            llja,

            Perhaps you missed this post above in the thread from yesterday:

            Re: Follow up to the recent trademark incident

            Good chat with Cory this morning and we have received a number of great
            suggestions on how best to service and support Scrum User Groups. We recognize
            that for some Scrum User Groups this agreement will not work. I think within a
            week we will come up with a better way of getting this done and a framework that
            will better address all our needs. Thank you Scrum community for your input and
            help.

            Jim Cundiff


            To add to that post, Jim and I have met extensively over the past few days and we are meeting physically with the rest of the team on Monday to talk about how to better help our user groups and accomplish our needs. I also understand that Jim is flying out to physically meet with Cory to try to really hear the concerns he had expressed and reach out to help us serve our official groups better in this matter. Both Jim and I have spent countless hours in direct correspondence or on the phone with people just like you that have had some concerns.

            We are working on this and we are learning from this.

            It took time for the last agreement to be formulated and written, so please allow us the time to process what is to come.



            Howard Sublett
            Membership Liaison
            Scrum Alliance, Inc.



            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ilja Preuß <iljapreuss@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hi Alan,
            >
            > > Now, from this friction, we (the community) and they (Scrum Alliance)
            > > have learned better how to work with one another.  Our work together
            > > can be stronger for the experience, if we make it so.
            >
            > I don't think that happens just by itself. And frankly, I don't see
            > any indication that someone at the SA is willing to take
            > responsibility for what happened, or that someone even thinks
            > something would better have been done differently, or should be done
            > differently in the future.
            >
            > Perhaps it is happening, but if it is, it seems to be happening behind
            > closed doors. Which doesn't help me gain confidence. In fact, it would
            > kind of show me that what seems to be the most important lesson to me,
            > hasn't been learned.
            >
            > But that's just me.
            >
            > Cheers, Ilja
            >
          • Cory Foy
            Hi Ilja, ... Actually, if you look at my last post to the group, I said that Jim explicitly said to me on the phone that they had made a mistake, and that they
            Message 5 of 13 , May 2, 2009
              Hi Ilja,

              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ilja Preuß <iljapreuss@...> wrote:
              > I don't think that happens just by itself. And frankly, I don't see
              > any indication that someone at the SA is willing to take
              > responsibility for what happened, or that someone even thinks
              > something would better have been done differently, or should be done
              > differently in the future.
              >
              > Perhaps it is happening, but if it is, it seems to be happening behind
              > closed doors. Which doesn't help me gain confidence. In fact, it would
              > kind of show me that what seems to be the most important lesson to me,
              > hasn't been learned.

              Actually, if you look at my last post to the group, I said that Jim explicitly said to me on the phone that they had made a mistake, and that they were being an impediment instead of a help, and that they wanted to change that.

              I also said that Jim and I are meeting on Tuesday here in Tampa to map out a way to change how this works. And further, that I'd make sure that any thing we came up with I'd bring to the group first.

              I didn't want to get too much into Jim and my discussion until we had talked more face-to-face, but here's an interesting tidbit. There are places in the world where companies, yes, companies, are naming themselves "Scrum User Group" as part of their title, and then offering "coaching" and "development" services through that company - usually by people that have not been through the Scrum classes, and often recommending things other than Scrum ("You don't need daily stand-ups! Prince2 is everything you need!").

              So the broader question is how to we keep that from happening and diluting not only Scrum, but agile as well? And do it in a way which allows for the teeth to block things like that, but without getting in the way of the communities that are working hard to spread agile and Scrum to their communities?

              That's what I hope to talk to him about, and what I want to bring out. I admit that I was quite skeptical, but after talking with Jim and others, I think that we can find a way to make it work.

              Hope that helps,

              Cory
            • Andrew Ramsay
              It would have been wise of the SA to cast their intent in terms other than heavy-handed, dictatorial, and threatening. /r A. Ramsay Ashburn VA ... From: Cory
              Message 6 of 13 , May 2, 2009
                It would have been wise of the SA to cast their intent in terms other than heavy-handed, dictatorial, and threatening.
                 
                /r
                 
                A. Ramsay
                Ashburn VA
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Cory Foy
                Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:15 PM
                Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] [scrumdevelopment] Re: Follow up to the recent trademark incident

                Hi Ilja,

                --- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, Ilja Preuß <iljapreuss@ ...> wrote:
                > I don't think that happens just by itself. And frankly, I don't see
                > any indication that someone at the SA is willing to take
                > responsibility for what happened, or that someone even thinks
                > something would better have been done differently, or should be done
                > differently in the future.
                >
                > Perhaps it is happening, but if it is, it seems to be happening behind
                > closed doors. Which doesn't help me gain confidence. In fact, it would
                > kind of show me that what seems to be the most important lesson to me,
                > hasn't been learned.

                Actually, if you look at my last post to the group, I said that Jim explicitly said to me on the phone that they had made a mistake, and that they were being an impediment instead of a help, and that they wanted to change that.

                I also said that Jim and I are meeting on Tuesday here in Tampa to map out a way to change how this works. And further, that I'd make sure that any thing we came up with I'd bring to the group first.

                I didn't want to get too much into Jim and my discussion until we had talked more face-to-face, but here's an interesting tidbit. There are places in the world where companies, yes, companies, are naming themselves "Scrum User Group" as part of their title, and then offering "coaching" and "development" services through that company - usually by people that have not been through the Scrum classes, and often recommending things other than Scrum ("You don't need daily stand-ups! Prince2 is everything you need!").

                So the broader question is how to we keep that from happening and diluting not only Scrum, but agile as well? And do it in a way which allows for the teeth to block things like that, but without getting in the way of the communities that are working hard to spread agile and Scrum to their communities?

                That's what I hope to talk to him about, and what I want to bring out. I admit that I was quite skeptical, but after talking with Jim and others, I think that we can find a way to make it work.

                Hope that helps,

                Cory

              • Ron Jeffries
                Hello, Andrew. On Saturday, May 2, 2009, at 12:40:07 PM, you ... Did you read the letter they sent? I did not see anything in it that was heavy-handed,
                Message 7 of 13 , May 2, 2009
                  Hello, Andrew. On Saturday, May 2, 2009, at 12:40:07 PM, you
                  wrote:

                  > It would have been wise of the SA to cast their intent in terms
                  > other than heavy-handed, dictatorial, and threatening.

                  Did you read the letter they sent? I did not see anything in it that
                  was heavy-handed, dictatorial, or threatening. I'd be very mildly
                  interesting in what you saw that was.

                  Ron Jeffries
                  www.XProgramming.com
                  www.xprogramming.com/blog
                  I try to Zen through it and keep my voice very mellow and low.
                  Inside I am screaming and have a machine gun.
                  Yin and Yang I figure.
                  -- Tom Jeffries
                • Paul Oldfield
                  (responding to Howard) ... Sounds promising. It would be good if a genuine Scrum user group could say what they were, even if they don t want to affiliate with
                  Message 8 of 13 , May 3, 2009
                    (responding to Howard)

                    > ... We recognize that for some Scrum User Groups this
                    > agreement will not work. I think within a week we will come up
                    > with a better way of getting this done and a framework that
                    > will better address all our needs...

                    Sounds promising.

                    It would be good if a genuine Scrum user group could say what
                    they were, even if they don't want to affiliate with Scrum
                    Alliance or use the Logo, or pay money for use of the term
                    "Scrum User Group". Of course, where I live that's not a
                    problem; being able to give a correct description takes
                    precedence over any registration of marks, in law. You'd
                    be able to register and control "Scrum UsrGroup" for
                    example, but not "Scrum User Group". Any genuine Scrum User
                    Group would have a very good case in law to be able to use that
                    description of themselves, because that's what they are.
                    You might register the mark, but you'd have less ability
                    to control use of the words from which the mark is made up.

                    If you could prove the people describing thamselves as a
                    Scrum User Group aren't, then they'd be in a less safe position.

                    Paul Oldfield
                    Capgemini
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.