Re: [scrumdevelopment] back
- False dichotomy.
I tend to view people as thinking adults, who easily underestimate how quickly emotions override their thinking, underestimate the impact of emotions on the effectiveness of teams, and who mostly are quite underequipped in dealing with emotions effectively. I see a lot of dysfunction coming from emotions that aren't dealt with because "we are all adults, aren't we" - or are finally dealt with by removing team members.
And if we are all so grown up, why was it necessary to remove Ron from the list "for our protection"? And does that, perhaps, relate to the practice of "voting team members off the island"?
Curious, Ilja2009/11/4 Roy Morien <roymorien@...>
Well, if you always deal with team members as if they are emotionally finely balanced kiddies who must be handled with kid-gloves at all times to avoid upsetting their finer sensibilities or damaging them psychologically, then Yes, you're right!
But I tend to view people more as thinking adults who are capable of withstanding a little rough and tumble in a discussion, and don't get emotionally disturbed at the drop of a hat.
But that's just me, of course
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 07:08:12 +0100
Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] back
Personally, I think that how you deal with group members who have an
emotional outburst is quite on topic for Scrum. I tend to believe that
the behavier we model here we will likely also show when dealing with
our teams. Which might be even more relevant than whether you do
But that's just me, of course.
2009/11/3, Roy Morien <roymorien@...>:
> Anyway, can we get on with the real business of the day ... whatever that is
> ... and finish this rather irrelevant stream of discussion.
> Roy Morien
> To: email@example.com
> From: adam.sroka@...
> Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 13:25:34 -0800
> Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] back
> Welcome back :-)
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
>> Hello, Peter. On Monday, November 2, 2009, at 12:48:22 AM, you
>> > I was quite surprised to see that you were suspended from the
>> > list for a few days and am quite happy to see you back. This list
>> > may a times produce more heat than light, but it produces a lot of
>> > light.
>> > The principle of a time out however was not correctly applied. A
>> > time out is not a punishment and in a situation like this should not
>> > single out one person.
>> My view is: "My house, my rules". This is Ken's house.
> I agree completely. As most people here probably know, I will be one
> of the first one's to call Ken (or anyone else) out when I think he is
> wrong. However, Ken started this list and Ken maintains it. If it is
> his right to kick us out if he wants to. And, what Ron said was
> legitimately worthy of moderation. There may have been another way to
> handle it, but it was up to Ken to make a snap decision and he made
> it. Hopefully we can now move on and go back to talking about Scrum
> things ;-)
> Take a peek at other people's pay and perks Check out The Great Australian
> Pay Check
View photos of singles in your area! Looking for a date?
- Hi Paul,
I like Ron's attitude - it fits the context.
Re- 'My' -
People who know me know I care about words
(as well as the ideas in Scrum, Agile, etc.)
'My', in your list, I see as falling into two contexts.
1. My - as part of you and only you - the first 3 or 4.
2. My - as you participate in along with others,
the rest of the list.
Some of these you own.
Some you can take pride in and perhaps defend.
And then there's My universe,
Is "The universe" is more appropriate? :-)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "pauloldfield1" <PaulOldfield1@...> wrote:
> (responding to Ron)
> > My view is: "My house, my rules". This is Ken's house.
> That word "My" seems to cause a lot of trouble...
> My body
> My blood
> My hand
> My idea
> My family
> My home
> My house
> My town
> My country
> My planet
> My universe
> They all have different connotations.
> Provided we're all agreed on just how much ownership each
> use of the word constitutes, no problem. But the word also
> implies responsibilities to the other owners, not just rights.
> No specific criticism of ANYBODY should be read into this.
> Paul Oldfield