Re: [scrumdevelopment] CONCERN: over continuing Schisming/Fragmentation of Scrum & Agile
Please provide for me a formal written description of how to build software mindfully that is equally applicable in every context.
After you have failed to do that consider who has an economic interest in claiming to be able to.On Apr 10, 2013 1:29 AM, "Doug" <dshelton94501@...> wrote:
I'm curious to hear some thoughts - not only from my fellow ScrumMasters out there - but hopefully right from the mouths of any "Agile Thought Leaders" (e.g., Manifesto signers, major authors, etc.) about the continuing schism in Scrum - And - agile
"frameworks" (I'm attempting to avoid raising the ire of purists who might waste time arguing the precise definition - and/or "appropriateness" - of the words I'm using here).
Specifically, I'm talking about three seemingly **diverging** areas:
1. The Scrum Alliance and its continuing "evolution" of Scrum (and associated agile - what, hopefully "processes" is an acceptable term?)
2. Ken Schwaber's Scrum.org. While it does seem that he and Jeff Sutherland continue to collaborate on the evolving definition of Scrum (at least as far as 2011??), nevertheless his absence from the Scrum Alliance and its annual conference is telling - - -
3. The PMI-Agile Community of Practice, their new agile certification, and related Agile conferences (e.g., Agile Development Conference West, gee whiz, also in Las Vegas a month after the Scrum Alliance conference) and associated processes such as Leffingwell's Scaled Agile Framework. FYI - it looks like Rally is backing/funding this conference while VersionOne is backing/funding the Scrum Alliance conference.
WHAT'S THE ISSUE? Simply that I detect strong smells of "religious-like entrenchment" - and conversely - little (if any) fully-engaged effort (at least that I am aware of ) to try and resolve the following differences among these three different, for lack of a better term, "Factions" regarding:
1. Identifying (and then resolving) differences in frameworks/processes/approaches
2. Acknowledging the validity of issues addressed by one or the other factions (as just **one** particular example: Scaling Scrum) - and then subsequently circling back around to point #1
3. (My least concern) appropriate certification
I agree that it could be argued that one should simply follow all three factions to the extent possible and make their own determination as to "what to use" from each. However, apart from the fact that this is very time consuming and expensive (and potentially a major "gamble") it truly seems quite UNagile for there to be no work on resolving differences and/or "niches" appropriate for each faction.
- Thanks a lot, George.Rgds-AN
On 4/20/13 10:16 AM, A Narasimhan wrote:
> Recently there was a mail on Agile Scaling by Ron Jeffries which went
> like this:
> ‘Collaboration works in a team but not so much in a building...’ etc.
> There were several points covered in that mail on scaling. I somehow
> deleted that mail.
> Can someone re-send the mail please...You could also send it to my
> personal mail
> mailto:an.narasimhan%40yahoo.co.in <mailto:mailto:an.narasimhan%40yahoo.co.in>
Every email has a trailer that includes:
> Visit Your Group
You can go there to search for messages.
* George Dinwiddie * http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
Software Development http://www.idiacomputing.com
Consultant and Coach http://www.agilemaryland.org