Re: assessment Discussion
- I find is disappointing that Ron has been removed as he is the only person concerned enough to wade through the visceral emotions with me and try to get at the nub of this issue. Ilja, for what ever reasons you feel threatened by me, not communicating them to me either here or off line is a sad statement in and of itself. I feel assassinated. To others who feel it necessary to whisper and haunt the shadows of this conversation, please come forward.
Back to the issue at hand
The problem as I see it is that we are losing one of our key protections to the team by relaxing who speaks during a scrum meeting. But let me make it clear the scrum meeting I am referring to is limited to a highly defined extremely limited set of actions where each person feels able to answer the questions 3 and do it in an unchallenged, nonthreatening way and to know that they are being heard, listened to, without distraction. 3 questions per person, each person, that is all. The rest of the conversations that occur can happen after the people on the team doing the tasks at hand. (NOT THE SCRUM TEAM - there is a defined difference)
This makes the question not a trick but a test of understanding as to what the purpose of the scrum meeting is, who it is for, and what the actions are.
Now, I would like to petition the king (Ken) and ask that a valued member of this community be given their voice back.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ilja Preuß <iljapreuss@...> wrote:
> For what it's worth, I felt my safety much more attacked by Mike than
> by Ron. Not that I'm advocating removing him from the list, though.
> 2009/10/30, Ken Schwaber <ken.schwaber@...>:
> > For the safety of the group, I've removed Ron for awhile,
> > Ken
> > On Oct 30, 2009, at 9:07 AM, Peter Stevens (cal) wrote:
> >> Hi Ron,
> >> If my kids we're having this discussion, I would yell 'Time-Out',
> >> send everyone to their respective corners to cool off, and when
> >> everybody is ready to be civil, I would let them come out again. Of
> >> course, you can't do that with adults....
> >> Cheers
> >> Peter
> >> Ron Jeffries wrote:
> >>> Hello, mike. On Thursday, October 29, 2009, at 10:55:56 PM, you
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > What is your problem? The conversation is all about a question
> >>> > that people are not agreeing on. The comment here was to find out
> >>> > what the WTF is a 'unhealthy pedagogy' by finding what a healthy
> >>> > one was. You got an example or just want to stomp your feet on the
> >>> > ground because I won't let this BS pass without an explanation.
> >>> > Now let's get to real polemic here scrum poison and ask this. Is
> >>> > what I am hearing a lot of emotional venting or is there some
> >>> > justifiable reason to toss this fish smell out there in lieu of a
> >>> rational counter argument.
> >>> > So finally what are you offering up with your choice of
> >>> > alliteration other than the fact you are apparently reduced to an
> >>> ad hominem argument?
> >>> > Best regards from your friend sometimes too understanding friend
> >>> Sorry, my Tourette filter failed. I apologize for using a bad word.
> >>> I know that Marines and others are sensitive about "polite"
> >>> language.
> >>> Here are some of the things I see in this discussion:
> >>> 1. Of all the practices in Scrum, the exact content of the Daily
> >>> Scrum, including who goes, who speaks, and who is given a rude
> >>> nickname seems to me to have a bit of leeway.
> >>> 2. The nominal source for the questions, the Scrum Guide, seems
> >>> to be self-contradictory regarding the Daily Scrum.
> >>> 3. Ken describes the question as testing "deep knowledge". Even
> >>> if it does, deep knowledge is not something I would expect
> >>> someone to have who has only just taken a short course.
> >>> 4. The SA is relying on this test, which it does not "own", based
> >>> on a writeup which it does not "own", to solve some problem which
> >>> it has not stated, and which the test has not been shown to
> >>> solve.
> >>> 5. The SA has still failed to weigh in with any clear statements
> >>> about the above issues, which is at least a failure of
> >>> transparency, if not worse.
> >>> 6. These concerns seem to me to be exactly on point regarding
> >>> the quality of the test and materials, which are outside our
> >>> control, outside the SA's control, and surely at best in Beta
> >>> state.
> >>> 7. You personally are dismissing these concerns of people with
> >>> respect to a question they consider tricky, about a fairly
> >>> subtle point regarding who goes to the Scrum.
> >>> 8. You are normally one of the people most likely to take an
> >>> approach that sounds more like "if it works, do it" than
> >>> "here is exactly what Scrum says, do that." Strikes me as
> >>> inconsistent.
> >>> Adding all this up, I felt, and still feel, that this is a small but
> >>> telling example regarding the situation we are in, and I feel
> >>> strongly that it does not deserve dismissal.
> >>> Again I apologize for the word. I blame Chet.
> >>> Ron Jeffries
> >>> www.XProgramming.com
> >>> www.xprogramming.com/blog
> >>> If another does not intend offense, it is wrong for me to seek it;
> >>> if another does indeed intend offense, it is foolish for me to
> >>> permit it.
> >>> -- Kelly Easterley
I think it’s also important to realize a PO is not simply a role; and the answer not black and white. Whether they attend the daily or not—or derive benefit from it—does not solely depend on their role, but on the personalities as well.
As a newbie to this list, I would bravely suggest the SM be cognizant of the PO impact (to the team/discussion) and manage their daily meeting participation accordingly. That doesn’t necessarily mean the SM defines new rules or makes sweeping dictation restricting participation. Perhaps it only means the SM discusses the observed impacts and lets the Scrum team converse and decide what works for their situation.
To be clear, I am only referring to the Scrum daily; I make no inference to other items of conversation.
On Oct 30, 2009, at 10:21 AM, George Dinwiddie wrote:
> I've observed POs who /almost/ always attended the Daily Scrum, and
> not micromanage. Quite the contrary, it gave them an appreciation for
> what the development team was doing and the challenges they were
> Frequently it was the PO, rather than the Scrummaster, who
> to do something about some impediment the team was facing. While
> working on such an issue, the PO would also answer the three
> Maybe it's no longer Scrum, but it was a team in which *everybody*
> seemed to feel a common stake in the outcome and the work being done.
> And that wasn't true when they first made the transition.
> There's more than one way to skin every cat. If it's no longer the
> definition of Scrum, so be it. I'll take effectiveness and trust
> between people any day.
Agreeing with all of this.
The tricky part is when the PO (or ScrumMaster) also has explicit or
implicit management authority over the rest of the team. As Keith
Johnstone put it, there are no status-free transactions. Boss-in-the-
meeting affects the team whether or not boss is inclined to exercise
his authority. I've seen team breakthroughs occur when the boss
leaves the room, just as I'm suddenly able to find my car keys when my
wife's not home.
. An example checklist for serious ScrumMasters: http://tinyurl.com/cvdwor
. 5-page illustrated summary of Scrum: http://refcardz.dzone.com/refcardz/scrum