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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Letting attacks go unchallenged

Expand Messages
  • PeteCRuth@aol.com
    Steve: I ve noticed more and more of this sort of thing. My guess, after careful consideration, is that some people simply cannot live without rules. Also,
    Message 1 of 76 , Feb 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      I've noticed more and more of this sort of thing. My guess, after careful consideration, is that some people  simply cannot live without rules. Also, have you noticed that there just seems to be more and more people who are compelled, for some reason, to put their own "spin" on things, even when what they're spinning has been pretty much spun to death? 
      In a message dated 2/1/2010 10:56:21 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, theropas@... writes:

      You know, I keep seeing items in the wider press that scrum can be too dogmatic.  I just wonder, is it really *scrum* that is dogmatic, or is it the approach that we, as a broad generalization, are taking. For instance, I have seen some of the most amusing stories twisted around only so that they can fit the "As a ___, I can ___ so that___" model.  Would it really have ended life as we know it if the story did not meet that form?  And yes, I've even seen people insist on rejecting stories that don't follow the form....

      Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:07 AM
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Letting attacks go unchallenged


      I thinking statements like bullshit don't do much to move any debate forward.

      Corey, how about some adult language? 

      But I get the feeling that scrum can be a little dogmatic, and the 2 day CSM course just bugs me. I think scrum is a good way to get started in agile, and that is how it should be presented, with pointers to other things once you are ready. I would also love to see some evolution, but I'm not so fussed as long as agile practicioners can get access to new materials  if scrum stays fixed then it will become less and less useful  over time newer techniques get introduced. 

      Jeff Anderson

      On Feb 1, 2010, at 8:13 AM, "mel" <mel.pullen@ntlworld .com> wrote:


      I was reading this post on Availagility  about the seminal article, "The new new product development game".

      This comment by Corey Ladas stands out:

      "I forgot how much bullshit had been added by the CSM crowd"

      I've just finished Corey's book called Scrum-Ban. In that he adds a lot of structure to the development process, that may be appropriate to software development and that requires interpretation by technically competent people. I think this comment in the book is telling:

      "If you refuse to take responsibility for sequencing the work, then I will"

      He calls this the developer's natural authority. To my mind, the priesthood of traditional software development shops is what got businesses into the mess they are with managing dynamic projects in the first place.

      So, he's taken as a starting point the distillation of agile project control that is scrum and added structure.

      I believe Scrum has the absolute minimum to give management the confidence projects are moving forward. It is my opinion that, by not prescribing how the various events get done allows Scrum to be used in many other areas that software development. Even product development.

      I think that there are many tools, techniques and practices that work extremely well inside Scrum, depending upon the project that is being controlled.

      So, what do people think? Should the Scrum community respond or ignore? Should Scrum evolve the way that critics suggest or the way practitioners suggest?

      Apologies if people get bounces from the email address that Yahoo groups think I use. For some reason I can't change it. I suppose the simplest thing would be to create a new account. Use mel at our domain, which is scrumit.co.uk

    • Peter Stevens (calendar)
      ... Why does a wardrobe malfunction produce a massive emotional response
      Message 76 of 76 , Feb 7, 2010
      • 0 Attachment

        Doesn't it seem a bit disproportionate, though? It does to me. I too
        am curious what aspect of the human condition causes us to attribute
        so much power to these words. The word "fuck" for example - though it
        has an accepted definition in common use its meaning is entirely
        contextual. It doesn't even convey a useful concept, therefore. So,
        why is its presence in speech (or writing) so important to us?


        Why does a "wardrobe malfunction" produce a massive emotional response including congressional investigations? Beats me. Probably has something to do with the Puritans and maybe that repression amplifies the response.

        Having said that, I do live in a less prudish part of the world (more sex on TV, more tolerance for public nudism, less sensitivity to obscene language). Even here, scatological references don't have much place in public discourse - you might occasionally hear 'Scheisse' from a politician's mouth, but it's an exception.

        An interesting question is why modesty developed, why it lives on, and whether it will survive the Internet. It seems pretty deeply rooted, but I think that question belongs on a different list...

        Peter Stevens, CSM, CSPO, CSP
        tel: +41 44 586 6450 
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.