Re: Scrum Extension Proposal - Planning Card Game
- Hi Ron,
let me jump in here...
>I believe that this exact step - the community review is here for this. If the paper somehow opposes Scrum or harms it, this is the way to go. Besides, let's look at it from a different angle - there are many teams that are convinced that Planning Card Game/Planning Poker/Scrum Poker, you-name-it, is in fact part of Scrum and if you're not doing it, you're not doing Scrum. This approach might bring some sanity to this thinking.
> The Extensions notion is clearly intended to give Scrum.org control over what is, and is not, OK in Scrum. This is not good for anyone, even Scrum.org.
>I'm not sure if you were trying to offend the three authors of the extension that have been community review published so far, but I believe you did. Could you give some examples that would support the thesis that they have not really used the technique?
> So far at least, the Extensions have not given credit to the original sources, nor to the many people who have been doing them for years. They often seem, in addition, to have been written up by people who have never really used them. This is a unique combination of disrespectful and ineffective.
If it comes to the original source of this extension - my bad, this is what the community review is for. I will include it right in the next revision.
>There are hundreds of blogs or even books that are showing incorrect usage of different techniques. Why bringing papers on techniques together, so that teams can understand them and use them correctly is harmful?
> To be successful in Scrum, teams need to do many things that are not specified by Scrum. The fundamental assumption of Scrum, self-organization, is that teams must, can, and will figure out what is best for them. The Extensions notion is in direct conflict with self-organization and is therefore damaging to the Scrum concepts and practice.
Any tool can be misused, even a screwdriver.
> By blessing certain activities as "Extensions", other activities are at least implicitly not blessed. Yet there are many activities that are important and far more valuable than, say, this ripped off notion of card planning. The Extensions idea is more likely to stultify teams than it is to help them.Ron, I believe you hold some significant knowledge on many techniques that a Scrum Team can benefit from. Maybe you'd like to write an extension on the ones you find helpful? Or present some of your papers as extensions. The community will definitely benefit from that.
Having read the proposal I would like more information on how the estimates are baselined. In previous projects we have used relative estimation and assumed that 5 represents the effort for a medium sized feature but I have also heard that others use 1 for a small feature. From my POV it seems more logical to use 5 as you can take a view on things smaller and larger whereas 1 the only was is up.
My felling is that the better the team's baseline then the better the estimation, and once chosen it would be hard to re-baseline - if that is even a word :)
--- In email@example.com, "davidmstarr" <david@...> wrote:
> This thread is the community conversation thread for a proposal to
> extend Scrum, Planning Card Game.
> Read the proposed extension here
> me.pdf> .
> As you may know, Scrum.org hosts the Scrum Guide, which defines the
> Scrum framework. Scrum Extensions are prescriptive guidance that goes
> beyond the Scrum framework to offer suggestions for how Scrum Teams can
> improve their practice within specific contexts.
> Scrum Extensions are authored and submitted by Scrum practitioners and
> published for consideration by the Scrum community in an open forum.
> Anyone may propose an extension.Please provide the extension author with
> feedback via this thread, or directly via email. All conversation is
> encouraged to occur in public and in the open. We all want the vetting
> process for Scrum Extensions to be transparent.