3 ms·

So, would it be fair to summarize this as, "You weren't doing True Scrum" ?

freedomben 3y ago
Yes I think so, but GP did point to actual specifications as justification. I hate the "you weren't doing real scrum" replies, but I don't think GP was doing that.
dragonwriter 3y ago
No, it would be fair to summarize this as “’Scrum’ is used so inconsistency that trying to evaluate ‘Scrum’ is of no value; it is worth evaluate specific practices and well-defined collections of practices including ‘the set of practices described in the Scrum Guide’, and, if you are evaluating that particular set of practices, it is worth noting that the example cited is not an example of them.” Much less TLDRish, but zooming out to take a broader perspective: There seems to be an intense agreement with both of the following statements: 1. The practices in the industry that the people imposing them call “Scrum” are often quite bad, and 2. The practices in the industry that the people imposing them call “Scrum” often bear very little relationship to the methodology laid out in any version of the Scrum Guide. Apparently because consensus is a bad thing and there aren’t enough real issues to argue about, some people who agree on points #1 and #2 seem to have squared off into a weird tribal battle over whether “Scrum” is bad due to #1 specifically that mostly turns on whether or not the One True Meaning of “Scrum”” is the thing they agree is very often bad in #1 or the thing they agree that thing differ differs from in #2. My position is that this is mostly silly, especially since there are very few contexts where both of those things are meaningful to consider: the first is so inconsistent in terms of actual practices that it is useless describe as a single thing in the context of concrete development practice, though it may be interesting to discuss as an industry cultural phenomenon, whereas particular practices or combinations of practices within its ambit can be discussed more productively when the focus is on concrete development practice; the second is specific enough to be useful to discuss in the context of concrete development practices, but not much else, except maybe in terms of its historical role in relation to the cultural phenomenon. With a little care to being clear what they are talking about and the what it is people are looking for from a discussion, the whole semantic side-debate can be avoided.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Unfortunately, "scrum master" is an actual job classification. So the true meaning of it, whatever that is, has escaped into the wild.

Yes I think so, but GP did point to actual specifications as justification. I hate the "you weren't doing real scrum" replies, but I don't think GP was doing that.

dragonwriter 3y ago

No, it would be fair to summarize this as “’Scrum’ is used so inconsistency that trying to evaluate ‘Scrum’ is of no value; it is worth evaluate specific practices and well-defined collections of practices including ‘the set of practices described in the Scrum Guide’, and, if you are evaluating that particular set of practices, it is worth noting that the example cited is not an example of them.” Much less TLDRish, but zooming out to take a broader perspective: There seems to be an intense agreement with both of the following statements: 1. The practices in the industry that the people imposing them call “Scrum” are often quite bad, and 2. The practices in the industry that the people imposing them call “Scrum” often bear very little relationship to the methodology laid out in any version of the Scrum Guide. Apparently because consensus is a bad thing and there aren’t enough real issues to argue about, some people who agree on points #1 and #2 seem to have squared off into a weird tribal battle over whether “Scrum” is bad due to #1 specifically that mostly turns on whether or not the One True Meaning of “Scrum”” is the thing they agree is very often bad in #1 or the thing they agree that thing differ differs from in #2. My position is that this is mostly silly, especially since there are very few contexts where both of those things are meaningful to consider: the first is so inconsistent in terms of actual practices that it is useless describe as a single thing in the context of concrete development practice, though it may be interesting to discuss as an industry cultural phenomenon, whereas particular practices or combinations of practices within its ambit can be discussed more productively when the focus is on concrete development practice; the second is specific enough to be useful to discuss in the context of concrete development practices, but not much else, except maybe in terms of its historical role in relation to the cultural phenomenon. With a little care to being clear what they are talking about and the what it is people are looking for from a discussion, the whole semantic side-debate can be avoided.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Unfortunately, "scrum master" is an actual job classification. So the true meaning of it, whatever that is, has escaped into the wild.