Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Follow up to the recent trademark incident
- It would have been wise of the SA to cast their intent in terms other than heavy-handed, dictatorial, and threatening./rA. RamsayAshburn VA----- Original Message -----From: Cory FoySent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:15 PMSubject: [Norton AntiSpam] [scrumdevelopment] Re: Follow up to the recent trademark incident
--- 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,
- Hello, Andrew. On Saturday, May 2, 2009, at 12:40:07 PM, you
> It would have been wise of the SA to cast their intent in termsDid you read the letter they sent? I did not see anything in it that
> other than heavy-handed, dictatorial, and threatening.
was heavy-handed, dictatorial, or threatening. I'd be very mildly
interesting in what you saw that was.
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
- (responding to Howard)
> ... We recognize that for some Scrum User Groups thisSounds promising.
> 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...
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.