3 ms·

The guys here come to the scrum retrospectives, stay silent the entire time, and then complain that scrum sucks.

• beardedwizard 3y ago
  Too true, seen it so many times.
• beebeepka 3y ago
  Or maybe they have tried speaking out, only to be chewed and digested for daring to raise their voice. Life is not black and white
• marcus_holmes 3y ago
  Tried saying "this process sucks, can we do it better?". Was told that Scrum is what all organisations use, there's nothing else (except Waterfall), and that this is "best practice". The people who are silent in the retros are probably jaded and cynical about the whole process. And if the manager knew their shit, they'd do something about that instead of accepting that some of their team are not engaged with the process.
• ahtihn 3y ago
  I think Scrum done well works rather well but retrospectives tend to be a lie. Teams generally aren't allowed to stop doing sprints. In some places they aren't even allowed to pick start and end dates because management wants all teams on the same cadence. If you use Jira - there's often all kinds of stupid imposed workflows. Mandatory fields depending on ticket types etc. If it's not useful to your team - tough shit, you don't have a choice. Want to stop doing story points and use tshirt sizes? You can't, management monitors velocity as performance indicator. Once you've had a few suggestions shot down because of top-down mandates, why even bother with retros? Basically, scrum is very frequently a top-down management technique and teams aren't actually self-organizing because management can't deal with 10 teams each doing things their own way.
• xedrac 3y ago
  I've spoken up in many retrospectives, but when nothing changes, it's hard to take them seriously. What's the point of a retrospective if your feedback is simply discarded?
  • rai_guy 3y ago
    [flagged]