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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Pigs are offensive? :: absolut not tolerable misbehav

Expand Messages
  • Stephen J. Bobick
    ... I disagree. This is about someone with an axe to grind trying to impose his political correctness on the world to make himself feel more important. There
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 29, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      >From: Deb <deborah@...>
      >I think we have just seen an example of what happens when we develop a
      >private language, invite the public in to discuss, and fail to reveal
      >the meaning and intention of our language.

      I disagree. This is about someone with an axe to grind trying to impose his political correctness on the world to make himself feel more important.

      There is no secret, "private" language here. Anyone working in the software development industry should be capable of picking up and reading a book on Scrum (less than 200 pages), or doing some simple Google searches. And the source of the meaning of chickens and pigs HAS been repeated in this thread.

      Finally, as someone alluded to already - a team that is new to Scrum, who complains about this issue, is most likely merely trying to change the subject and be obstructionists.

      -- Stephen
    • Ron Jeffries
      ... How could we possibly know this person s motivations? ... Should be. Many do not. Are they therefore to be cast into the outer darkness? ... So, is it the
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 1:23:21 PM, Stephen J. Bobick wrote:

        >>From: Deb <deborah@...>
        >>I think we have just seen an example of what happens when we develop a
        >>private language, invite the public in to discuss, and fail to reveal
        >>the meaning and intention of our language.

        > I disagree. This is about someone with an axe to grind trying to
        > impose his political correctness on the world to make himself feel
        > more important.

        How could we possibly know this person's motivations?

        > There is no secret, "private" language here. Anyone working in the
        > software development industry should be capable of picking up and
        > reading a book on Scrum (less than 200 pages), or doing some
        > simple Google searches. And the source of the meaning of chickens
        > and pigs HAS been repeated in this thread.

        Should be. Many do not. Are they therefore to be cast into the outer
        darkness?

        > Finally, as someone alluded to already - a team that is new to
        > Scrum, who complains about this issue, is
        > most likely merely trying to change the subject and be obstructionists.

        So, is it the Scrum way to accept only teams that are on board with
        everything about this process that they've probably never heard much
        about?

        Ron Jeffries
        www.XProgramming.com
        Speculation or experimentation - which is more likely to give the correct answer?
      • Sampo Pasanen
        But why is it so important to use terms pig and chicken in every Scrum team and every company? Individuals and interactions over processes and tools . If
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 29, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          But why is it so important to use terms 'pig' and 'chicken' in every
          Scrum team and every company? "Individuals and interactions over
          processes and tools". If terms become a problem for the team, it's
          easier to change the terms than the team. It's really important that
          the team commits to the process, and if they prefer some other terms
          instead of those defined in Scrum, they should be free to use them.

          Sampo

          --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen J. Bobick"
          <s.bobick@v...> wrote:

          > There is no secret, "private" language here. Anyone working in the
          software development industry should be capable of picking up and
          reading a book on Scrum (less than 200 pages), or doing some simple
          Google searches. And the source of the meaning of chickens and pigs
          HAS been repeated in this thread.
          >
          > Finally, as someone alluded to already - a team that is new to
          Scrum, who complains about this issue, is most likely merely trying to
          change the subject and be obstructionists.
          >
          > -- Stephen
        • Deb
          FYI - Some alternative terms that have been suggested by scrummasters in the past can be found at the bottom of this page:
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 30, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            FYI - Some alternative terms that have been suggested by scrummasters
            in the past can be found at the bottom of this page:

            http://wiki.scrums.org/index.cgi?PigsAndChickens

            deb

            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Sampo Pasanen"
            <sampopasanen@i...> wrote:
            > But why is it so important to use terms 'pig' and 'chicken' in every
            > Scrum team and every company? "Individuals and interactions over
            > processes and tools". If terms become a problem for the team, it's
            > easier to change the terms than the team. It's really important that
            > the team commits to the process, and if they prefer some other terms
            > instead of those defined in Scrum, they should be free to use them.
            >
            > Sampo
          • Deb
            ... in this thread. ... Ah, I see. The thread forked, and I missed part of it. Yes, Rick did include the joke. But as we have seen, the joke is not enough.
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 30, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen J. Bobick"
              <s.bobick@v...> wrote:
              > ... the source of the meaning of chickens and pigs HAS been repeated
              in this thread.
              >

              Ah, I see. The thread forked, and I missed part of it. Yes, Rick did
              include the joke. But as we have seen, the joke is not enough. Which
              is why (quite a while ago) I posted the wiki page ABOUT the joke, to
              document some of the context that Jeff S. and others have written
              around it. I know, a wiki page is a passive thing (wow, that's
              profound, deb!) and obviously did not help much in this discussion.

              I like Mike's "use once and then discard" advice - he says he tells
              the joke, but never calls people Chickens and Pigs as labels. This
              sounds good to me. There are enough alternate ways to designate these
              two groups: including Committed and Involved (from the original joke).

              I'd like to see Mike's advice included in the CSM course.

              Oops, I forgot. We're talking about horses now. It's hard to keep up
              today :-)

              deb
            • aacockburn
              I had to introduce a standup in a company this week, with extremely little time to brief them as to what it was and how it worked. The ueber manager got
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                I had to introduce a standup in a company this week, with extremely
                little time to brief them as to what it was and how it worked. The
                ueber manager got confused at one point and thought I was wanting the
                senior managers to meet when I really wanted a very particular
                project team group to meet.

                I said that it could apply to any group and the meeting was defined
                by the participants who were working together and had something to
                report --- and then I listed the names of the people I had in mind.

                When the much larger meeting was breaking up and we were getting
                ready to start, someone asked if they should stay. I answered that
                the meeting was for those who had something to report out, for those
                who had something to say about their accomplishments in the last few
                days on this project. He said, "Oh, that's not me, so I don't have to
                stay".

                In the end, all the people who left knew they didn't have anything to
                say on the topic at hand, all who stayed knew they did, except one
                person who said, "I'm just here to listen."

                This took more words to speak than "pigs and chickens" but about the
                same number of sentences. For this group, it was better not to
                introduce specialized slang vocabulary into their (already tense)
                meeting.

                Alistair
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.