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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Sprint Goal and extra stories

Expand Messages
  • Adam Sroka
    ... And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 25, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > Hi Adam,
      >
      >
      > On Oct 25, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
      >
      > It is a very low ceremony kind of Kanban. Industrial Logic/Joshua Kerievsky recommend something similar and call it "Ultra Lean." However, during my time there we did something a bit more complex because the team membership was very dynamic from week to week.
      >
      >
      > Yes. My only point is that Scrum expects a commitment (or at least a forecast) of the work to be accomplished in a time-boxed Sprint.
      >

      And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
    • Steve
      I am confused about why commitment and forecast seem to be used as synonyms! If you commit to something and do not complete some aspect of that
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 26, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as synonyms!

        If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that commitment, you have failed; if you forecast something you are acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not complete some aspect of it.

        I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right about 65% of the time!

        Even he latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are not the same thing.

        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
        >
        > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
        > > It is a very low ceremony kind of Kanban. Industrial Logic/Joshua Kerievsky recommend something similar and call it "Ultra Lean." However, during my time there we did something a bit more complex because the team membership was very dynamic from week to week.
        > >
        > >
        > > Yes. My only point is that Scrum expects a commitment (or at least a forecast) of the work to be accomplished in a time-boxed Sprint.
        > >
        >
        > And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
        >
      • RonJeffries
        Hello Steve, ... They are not used as synonyms. They are used at the same place in the sentence, depending on which you choose to use, namely forecasting or
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 26, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Steve,

          On Oct 26, 2012, at 5:46 AM, "Steve" <steve@...> wrote:

          I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as synonyms!
          [MOVED]: Even the latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are not the same thing. 

          They are not used as synonyms. They are used at the same place in the sentence, depending on which you choose to use, namely forecasting or committing.

          If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that commitment, you have failed;  if you forecast something you are acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not complete some aspect of it.

          That is the concern with the word "commit", namely that some people focus on succeed / fail kinds of thinking. The result of this is that teams who use commitment in the presence of succeed/fail thinking can become too focused on not "failing" and will cut corners so as to report that they are done. This leads to what is properly called shoddy work. The product will be tested less extensively than it needs or polished less than it needs. Often individuals on a team become less helpful lest "their own" work suffer.

          I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right about 65% of the time!

          You have just nicely articulated the corresponding concern with the word "forecast", namely that some people become quite blasé about their forecasts, as if after all what the team gets done is like weather, pretty random and you never know what might blow in. Oddly, as far as I know, this relaxation of pressure does not seem to provide improved testing or better code. It does not seem to provide better teamwork.

          I imagine that the S.G. has switched from commit to forecast in hopes that it will result in less improper pressure not to "fail", and more understanding that no one really knows how much work will get done two weeks from now. Many of us still prefer the notion of commitment, because we believe that, used properly, it gives better results.

          My own views on this have changed and continue to change. More and more I favor a style of work where the team pulls items in when they are truly ready to work on them, and marks them as complete when they are truly complete. This is more of a continuous flow model, or a "Kanban" style of working. However, Scrum, as defined, follows more of a "batch" planning style, with a time boxed interval, the Sprint, where things are done at the end, but need not be done every day.

          The Sprint style may be easier to learn with, and in any case, if you're going to do Scrum, you need to work that way. The batch style is certainly not always best in the hands of a really effective team. I consider it an advanced approach for now. Proponents of other methods, such as Kanban System, think that the more continuous model is always better. I'm not convinced of that.
          Wisdom begins when we understand the difference between "that makes no sense" and "I don't understand". -- Mary Doria Russell

        • Cass Dalton
          I believe that replacement is on purpose. The term commitment is a hold over from the predictive waterfall world. As an emperical process, scrum know that
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 26, 2012
          • 0 Attachment

            I believe that replacement is on purpose.  The term commitment is a hold over from the predictive waterfall world.  As an emperical process, scrum know that @$%! happens and even the best laid plans don't always go the way you expect.  So calling the work to be done a commitment implies that you can completely predict how much work is going to get done in a sprint.  Calling it a forecast is calling it what it is: your best educated guess at how much work will get done.  So you are right, they are not synonyms.  You are mistaken that everyone is actually using them as synonyms.  I think Ron's use of the terms together was a nod to the new vocabulary, and almost a poke at the fact that they are NOT synonyms and how that relates to the discussion.  If you still consider the assigned work to be done as a commitment, then "committing" to stretch goals will often lead to an appearance of failure even when the sprint was very successful.  This was, in fact, one of Ron's first points.

            On Oct 26, 2012 5:48 AM, "Steve" <steve@...> wrote:
             

            I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as synonyms!

            If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that commitment, you have failed; if you forecast something you are acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not complete some aspect of it.

            I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right about 65% of the time!

            Even he latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are not the same thing.

            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
            >
            > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
            > > It is a very low ceremony kind of Kanban. Industrial Logic/Joshua Kerievsky recommend something similar and call it "Ultra Lean." However, during my time there we did something a bit more complex because the team membership was very dynamic from week to week.
            > >
            > >
            > > Yes. My only point is that Scrum expects a commitment (or at least a forecast) of the work to be accomplished in a time-boxed Sprint.
            > >
            >
            > And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
            >

          • Steve
            Thank you Ron for your clarification; it the damned written word that caused my confusion; I tend to interpret things like ... forecast (commitment) ... as
            Message 5 of 24 , Oct 26, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Thank you Ron for your clarification; it the 'damned' written word that caused my confusion; I tend to interpret things like '... forecast (commitment) ...' as the writer meaning these words are synonyms.

              I agree with what you say may happen with forecast (people could get blase when they do not have a target to meet). That is why I always suggest that teams have a 'minimum' to be done, based on the Sprint Goal, that is about 60-65% of the total estimated work.

              I agree that a more continuous approach is probably more 'honest' (even within a development timeboxed environment such as Sprints) but how do you stop Stakeholders asking questions like 'What am I going to get by when?'.

              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hello Steve,
              >
              > On Oct 26, 2012, at 5:46 AM, "Steve" <steve@...> wrote:
              >
              > > I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as synonyms!
              > > [MOVED]: Even the latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are not the same thing.
              >
              > They are not used as synonyms. They are used at the same place in the sentence, depending on which you choose to use, namely forecasting or committing.
              > >
              > > If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that commitment, you have failed; if you forecast something you are acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not complete some aspect of it.
              >
              > That is the concern with the word "commit", namely that some people focus on succeed / fail kinds of thinking. The result of this is that teams who use commitment in the presence of succeed/fail thinking can become too focused on not "failing" and will cut corners so as to report that they are done. This leads to what is properly called shoddy work. The product will be tested less extensively than it needs or polished less than it needs. Often individuals on a team become less helpful lest "their own" work suffer.
              > >
              > > I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right about 65% of the time!
              >
              > You have just nicely articulated the corresponding concern with the word "forecast", namely that some people become quite blasé about their forecasts, as if after all what the team gets done is like weather, pretty random and you never know what might blow in. Oddly, as far as I know, this relaxation of pressure does not seem to provide improved testing or better code. It does not seem to provide better teamwork.
              >
              > I imagine that the S.G. has switched from commit to forecast in hopes that it will result in less improper pressure not to "fail", and more understanding that no one really knows how much work will get done two weeks from now. Many of us still prefer the notion of commitment, because we believe that, used properly, it gives better results.
              >
              > My own views on this have changed and continue to change. More and more I favor a style of work where the team pulls items in when they are truly ready to work on them, and marks them as complete when they are truly complete. This is more of a continuous flow model, or a "Kanban" style of working. However, Scrum, as defined, follows more of a "batch" planning style, with a time boxed interval, the Sprint, where things are done at the end, but need not be done every day.
              >
              > The Sprint style may be easier to learn with, and in any case, if you're going to do Scrum, you need to work that way. The batch style is certainly not always best in the hands of a really effective team. I consider it an advanced approach for now. Proponents of other methods, such as Kanban System, think that the more continuous model is always better. I'm not convinced of that.
              >
              > Ron Jeffries
              > www.XProgramming.com
              > Wisdom begins when we understand the difference between "that makes no sense" and "I don't understand". -- Mary Doria Russell
              >
            • Steve
              Hi Cass - thanks for the reply See my reply to Ron as to why I thought that people are using the words as synonyms. Those in the know could probabbly see
              Message 6 of 24 , Oct 26, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Cass - thanks for the reply

                See my reply to Ron as to why I thought that people are using the words as synonyms.

                'Those in the know' could probabbly see 'Ron's poke'; I am concerned that there are many people not 'in the know' who read these posts who may consider that words in brackets are alternatives or synonyms and become confused.

                That was all the point of my post was.

                --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Cass Dalton <cassdalton73@...> wrote:
                >
                > I believe that replacement is on purpose. The term commitment is a hold
                > over from the predictive waterfall world. As an emperical process, scrum
                > know that @$%! happens and even the best laid plans don't always go the way
                > you expect. So calling the work to be done a commitment implies that you
                > can completely predict how much work is going to get done in a sprint.
                > Calling it a forecast is calling it what it is: your best educated guess at
                > how much work will get done. So you are right, they are not synonyms. You
                > are mistaken that everyone is actually using them as synonyms. I think
                > Ron's use of the terms together was a nod to the new vocabulary, and almost
                > a poke at the fact that they are NOT synonyms and how that relates to the
                > discussion. If you still consider the assigned work to be done as a
                > commitment, then "committing" to stretch goals will often lead to an
                > appearance of failure even when the sprint was very successful. This was,
                > in fact, one of Ron's first points.
                > On Oct 26, 2012 5:48 AM, "Steve" <steve@...> wrote:
                >
                > > **
                > >
                > >
                > > I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as
                > > synonyms!
                > >
                > > If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that
                > > commitment, you have failed; if you forecast something you are
                > > acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not
                > > complete some aspect of it.
                > >
                > > I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right
                > > about 65% of the time!
                > >
                > > Even he latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are
                > > not the same thing.
                > >
                > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@>
                > > wrote:
                > > >
                > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@> wrote:
                > > > > It is a very low ceremony kind of Kanban. Industrial Logic/Joshua
                > > Kerievsky recommend something similar and call it "Ultra Lean." However,
                > > during my time there we did something a bit more complex because the team
                > > membership was very dynamic from week to week.
                > > > >
                > > > >
                > > > > Yes. My only point is that Scrum expects a commitment (or at least a
                > > forecast) of the work to be accomplished in a time-boxed Sprint.
                > > > >
                > > >
                > > > And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
                > > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                >
              • PAUL
                Hi Cass, No you make a good point. Th problem with things like the Scrum Guide is they seldom say I don t know . They try to offer universal prescriptions
                Message 7 of 24 , Oct 26, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Cass,

                  No you make a good point. Th problem with things like the Scrum Guide is they seldom say "I don't know". They try to offer universal prescriptions where none exist.

                  Like your question:

                  >but how do you stop
                  Stakeholders asking questions like 'What am I going to get by when?'.

                  I don't know :) I've been at this over 20 years now and I still haven't worked out the answer to that one, and my guess is I never will ;)

                  The serious point is that there are no hard and fast rules here. We are talking about open complex adaptive systems involving people, and people are anything but deterministic and predictable.

                  There isn't one answer that will fit all teams at all times. You are better off relying on the underlying principles and values to come to a judgement, and of course your own common sense.

                  Paul.




                  --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <steve@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Hi Cass - thanks for the reply
                  >
                  > See my reply to Ron as to why I thought that people are using the words as synonyms.
                  >
                  > 'Those in the know' could probabbly see 'Ron's poke'; I am concerned that there are many people not 'in the know' who read these posts who may consider that words in brackets are alternatives or synonyms and become confused.
                  >
                  > That was all the point of my post was.
                  >
                  > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Cass Dalton <cassdalton73@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > I believe that replacement is on purpose. The term commitment is a hold
                  > > over from the predictive waterfall world. As an emperical process, scrum
                  > > know that @$%! happens and even the best laid plans don't always go the way
                  > > you expect. So calling the work to be done a commitment implies that you
                  > > can completely predict how much work is going to get done in a sprint.
                  > > Calling it a forecast is calling it what it is: your best educated guess at
                  > > how much work will get done. So you are right, they are not synonyms. You
                  > > are mistaken that everyone is actually using them as synonyms. I think
                  > > Ron's use of the terms together was a nod to the new vocabulary, and almost
                  > > a poke at the fact that they are NOT synonyms and how that relates to the
                  > > discussion. If you still consider the assigned work to be done as a
                  > > commitment, then "committing" to stretch goals will often lead to an
                  > > appearance of failure even when the sprint was very successful. This was,
                  > > in fact, one of Ron's first points.
                  > > On Oct 26, 2012 5:48 AM, "Steve" <steve@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > > **
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > > I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as
                  > > > synonyms!
                  > > >
                  > > > If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that
                  > > > commitment, you have failed; if you forecast something you are
                  > > > acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not
                  > > > complete some aspect of it.
                  > > >
                  > > > I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right
                  > > > about 65% of the time!
                  > > >
                  > > > Even he latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are
                  > > > not the same thing.
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@>
                  > > > wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@> wrote:
                  > > > > > It is a very low ceremony kind of Kanban. Industrial Logic/Joshua
                  > > > Kerievsky recommend something similar and call it "Ultra Lean." However,
                  > > > during my time there we did something a bit more complex because the team
                  > > > membership was very dynamic from week to week.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > Yes. My only point is that Scrum expects a commitment (or at least a
                  > > > forecast) of the work to be accomplished in a time-boxed Sprint.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
                  > > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • PAUL
                  Sorry. I addressed this to Cass, I meant Steve of course. My apologies, Paul.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Oct 26, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Sorry. I addressed this to Cass, I meant Steve of course.

                    My apologies,

                    Paul.
                    --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "PAUL" <beckfordp@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi Cass,
                    >
                    > No you make a good point. Th problem with things like the Scrum Guide is they seldom say "I don't know". They try to offer universal prescriptions where none exist.
                    >
                    > Like your question:
                    >
                    > >but how do you stop
                    > Stakeholders asking questions like 'What am I going to get by when?'.
                    >
                    > I don't know :) I've been at this over 20 years now and I still haven't worked out the answer to that one, and my guess is I never will ;)
                    >
                    > The serious point is that there are no hard and fast rules here. We are talking about open complex adaptive systems involving people, and people are anything but deterministic and predictable.
                    >
                    > There isn't one answer that will fit all teams at all times. You are better off relying on the underlying principles and values to come to a judgement, and of course your own common sense.
                    >
                    > Paul.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <steve@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Hi Cass - thanks for the reply
                    > >
                    > > See my reply to Ron as to why I thought that people are using the words as synonyms.
                    > >
                    > > 'Those in the know' could probabbly see 'Ron's poke'; I am concerned that there are many people not 'in the know' who read these posts who may consider that words in brackets are alternatives or synonyms and become confused.
                    > >
                    > > That was all the point of my post was.
                    > >
                    > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Cass Dalton <cassdalton73@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > I believe that replacement is on purpose. The term commitment is a hold
                    > > > over from the predictive waterfall world. As an emperical process, scrum
                    > > > know that @$%! happens and even the best laid plans don't always go the way
                    > > > you expect. So calling the work to be done a commitment implies that you
                    > > > can completely predict how much work is going to get done in a sprint.
                    > > > Calling it a forecast is calling it what it is: your best educated guess at
                    > > > how much work will get done. So you are right, they are not synonyms. You
                    > > > are mistaken that everyone is actually using them as synonyms. I think
                    > > > Ron's use of the terms together was a nod to the new vocabulary, and almost
                    > > > a poke at the fact that they are NOT synonyms and how that relates to the
                    > > > discussion. If you still consider the assigned work to be done as a
                    > > > commitment, then "committing" to stretch goals will often lead to an
                    > > > appearance of failure even when the sprint was very successful. This was,
                    > > > in fact, one of Ron's first points.
                    > > > On Oct 26, 2012 5:48 AM, "Steve" <steve@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > > **
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as
                    > > > > synonyms!
                    > > > >
                    > > > > If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that
                    > > > > commitment, you have failed; if you forecast something you are
                    > > > > acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not
                    > > > > complete some aspect of it.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right
                    > > > > about 65% of the time!
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Even he latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are
                    > > > > not the same thing.
                    > > > >
                    > > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@>
                    > > > > wrote:
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@> wrote:
                    > > > > > > It is a very low ceremony kind of Kanban. Industrial Logic/Joshua
                    > > > > Kerievsky recommend something similar and call it "Ultra Lean." However,
                    > > > > during my time there we did something a bit more complex because the team
                    > > > > membership was very dynamic from week to week.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > > > Yes. My only point is that Scrum expects a commitment (or at least a
                    > > > > forecast) of the work to be accomplished in a time-boxed Sprint.
                    > > > > > >
                    > > > > >
                    > > > > > And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
                    > > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • Gercel Silva
                    Thank you very much for your insights. You hava all made good points. I think the situation I described is caused by a few misunderstandings about the
                    Message 9 of 24 , Oct 29, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thank you very much for your insights. You hava all  made good points. I think the situation I described is caused by a few misunderstandings about the concepts of sprint backlog and sprint goal.

                      I agree that the goal can be met without actually finishing all stories in the sprint but that should be an exception, not the rule. What I've seen is that people intentionally set a goal that doesn't include all stories and add extra stories to have some space for unexpected delays or early delivery. Since there is no product backlog grooming, they feel that additional stories have to be discussed and planned during the sprint planning.

                      Gercel



                      On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:48 PM, PAUL <beckfordp@...> wrote:
                       


                      Sorry. I addressed this to Cass, I meant Steve of course.

                      My apologies,

                      Paul.


                      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "PAUL" <beckfordp@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Hi Cass,
                      >
                      > No you make a good point. Th problem with things like the Scrum Guide is they seldom say "I don't know". They try to offer universal prescriptions where none exist.
                      >
                      > Like your question:
                      >
                      > >but how do you stop
                      > Stakeholders asking questions like 'What am I going to get by when?'.
                      >
                      > I don't know :) I've been at this over 20 years now and I still haven't worked out the answer to that one, and my guess is I never will ;)
                      >
                      > The serious point is that there are no hard and fast rules here. We are talking about open complex adaptive systems involving people, and people are anything but deterministic and predictable.
                      >
                      > There isn't one answer that will fit all teams at all times. You are better off relying on the underlying principles and values to come to a judgement, and of course your own common sense.
                      >
                      > Paul.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <steve@> wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Hi Cass - thanks for the reply
                      > >
                      > > See my reply to Ron as to why I thought that people are using the words as synonyms.
                      > >
                      > > 'Those in the know' could probabbly see 'Ron's poke'; I am concerned that there are many people not 'in the know' who read these posts who may consider that words in brackets are alternatives or synonyms and become confused.
                      > >
                      > > That was all the point of my post was.
                      > >
                      > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Cass Dalton <cassdalton73@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > I believe that replacement is on purpose. The term commitment is a hold
                      > > > over from the predictive waterfall world. As an emperical process, scrum
                      > > > know that @$%! happens and even the best laid plans don't always go the way
                      > > > you expect. So calling the work to be done a commitment implies that you
                      > > > can completely predict how much work is going to get done in a sprint.
                      > > > Calling it a forecast is calling it what it is: your best educated guess at
                      > > > how much work will get done. So you are right, they are not synonyms. You
                      > > > are mistaken that everyone is actually using them as synonyms. I think
                      > > > Ron's use of the terms together was a nod to the new vocabulary, and almost
                      > > > a poke at the fact that they are NOT synonyms and how that relates to the
                      > > > discussion. If you still consider the assigned work to be done as a
                      > > > commitment, then "committing" to stretch goals will often lead to an
                      > > > appearance of failure even when the sprint was very successful. This was,
                      > > > in fact, one of Ron's first points.
                      > > > On Oct 26, 2012 5:48 AM, "Steve" <steve@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > > **
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I am confused about why 'commitment' and 'forecast' seem to be used as
                      > > > > synonyms!
                      > > > >
                      > > > > If you 'commit' to something and do not complete some aspect of that
                      > > > > commitment, you have failed; if you forecast something you are
                      > > > > acknowledging that you do not have all the facts and that you may not
                      > > > > complete some aspect of it.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > I can forecast the weather but even the UK Met Office only gets it right
                      > > > > about 65% of the time!
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Even he latest Scrum Guide has replaced 'commit' with 'forecast'; they are
                      > > > > not the same thing.
                      > > > >
                      > > > > --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@>
                      > > > > wrote:
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 2:23 PM, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@> wrote:
                      > > > > > > It is a very low ceremony kind of Kanban. Industrial Logic/Joshua
                      > > > > Kerievsky recommend something similar and call it "Ultra Lean." However,
                      > > > > during my time there we did something a bit more complex because the team
                      > > > > membership was very dynamic from week to week.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > > > Yes. My only point is that Scrum expects a commitment (or at least a
                      > > > > forecast) of the work to be accomplished in a time-boxed Sprint.
                      > > > > > >
                      > > > > >
                      > > > > > And, of course, you are completely correct on that point.
                      > > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >


                    • JackM
                      What we do is we select buffer stories which we don t sign up for but if we finish ahead of time, we pull them in. But we don t add it to the burndown until we
                      Message 10 of 24 , Oct 29, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        What we do is we select buffer stories which we don't sign up for but if we finish ahead of time, we pull them in.

                        But we don't add it to the burndown until we pull it in.

                        Hope this helps
                        Jack

                        www.agilebuddy.com
                        blog.agilebuddy.com

                        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Gercel Silva <gercel@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Hi folks,
                        >
                        > What do you guys think about having a story that the team did not forecast
                        > to deliver in the Sprint Backlog just because the team 'might' have it done
                        > by the end of the Sprint? I've seen it happen recently and people say that
                        > the whole sprint is what is 'possible' and the goal should match only a
                        > subset of the stories in it, which the team is commited to deliver.
                        >
                        > The burndown chart includes those 'extra stories' since the beginning and
                        > it is not uncommom that by the end of the sprint they are untouched. The
                        > sprint is considered sucessfull but the sprint backlog/burndown show that
                        > there is still work to be done (extra stories that go to the next sprint).
                        >
                        > How would you advise people in this situation?
                        >
                        > Regards,
                        > Gercel Silva
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.