Re: [scrumdevelopment] Letting attacks go unchallenged
- 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, 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?Regards,PeteIn 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....SteveI 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.
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
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 www.scrum-breakfast.com tel: +41 44 586 6450