- Hello, Charles. On Thursday, June 2, 2011, at 12:46:37 PM, you ... Not really. You just have to do it. I ve never seen a team fail at it. ... I don t think IMessage 1 of 39 , Jun 2, 2011View SourceHello, Charles. On Thursday, June 2, 2011, at 12:46:37 PM, you
> Well, that kind of makes sense given your stance that all UserNot really. You just have to do it. I've never seen a team fail at
> Stories should be 2-3 days. I feel the same way about the one
> week sprints that I do about the 2-3 day stories practice -- it
> takes quite a bit of maturity (Scrum + User Stories) to be able to
> pull that off well.
> I do believe you when you say it is a reallyI don't think I said "Best Practice". It is the best thing that I
> good practice, I just believe it is more of a pattern than a Best
> Practice. In other words, IMO, it's a Best Practice in a certain
> context(and that context is moderately mature Scrum/US teams).
currently know, however, and it works just fine independent of
maturity as far as I can tell.
Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach.
- Hey Wouter, From what you re saying, it sounds like you re relying on longer sprints to hide inefficiencies in your current processes. Perhaps the team couldMessage 39 of 39 , Jun 2, 2011View SourceHey Wouter,
From what you're saying, it sounds like you're relying on longer sprints to hide inefficiencies in your current processes. Perhaps the team could inspect these and find ways to fix them?
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:30 PM, Wouter Lagerweij <wouter@...> wrote:
This is a very useful discussion, thanks.Like Charles, I've been starting teams out with two week sprints. Mostly because, usually, there are plenty of difficulties for them to get any work done within those two weeks: CI and release building problems, backlog/story preparation, insufficient testing, etc. So I thought aiming for a shorter sprint would set the team up for failure, and might discourage them too much from using Scrum. I do always include a 'shorter is better' talk when choosing the sprint length with the team, but recommend two weeks.What you're all saying is that one week would be better, right from the start. I was wondering what the way do deal with the failure is. Or (since the obvious answer is: fix the impediments first, go faster later) what you do to keep the team positive and engaged with adopting Scrum when their first sprints fall far short of (their) expectations?btw, in Dutch we have a saying: "Zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden", which roughly translates as "Gentle healers make stinking wounds", meaning a direct thorough treatment of a problem is usually better, because half-measure could make the problem worse. It seems appropriate in the context.Wouter--On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:48 AM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
Hello, Charles. On Wednesday, June 1, 2011, at 5:41:32 PM, you
>> I believe you are missing a lot by settling for two weeks.Fair point. I can't say my mind has changed on the matter, especially wrt to the team context for the teams I've coached, but I'll give it some consideration.
> Do you believe that to be true for most teams? Is it your view
> that most teams should do 1 week sprints?
New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
the humiliating question arises, "Why then are you not taking part in
them?" -- H. G. Wells
Wouter Lagerweij | wouter@...http://www.lagerweij.com | @wouterla