> "POINTS AREN'T TIME! THEY'RE EFFORT AND/OR COMPLEXITY!" I've been routinely told. Yet... low complexity stuff was expected to take less time, even if it was h

> "POINTS AREN'T TIME! THEY'RE EFFORT AND/OR COMPLEXITY!" I've been routinely told. Yet... low complexity stuff was expected to take less time, even if it was high effort. All 'in my experience' of course. This realy grinds my gears. I had a recent experience with a scrum master (technically a delivery lead but in practice a scrum master). Really nice guy, smart, easy going. We had many discussions about the value of estimates, and the whole "it's complexity, not time" trope would come up. So I asked what the estimates were used for. Turns out they're used to forecast cadence / velocity. Of course, knowing that we were going to be asked why a small story was taking two weeks to complete, we'd start sizing based on time. After all, we're humans, biased and flawed. Now you tell me, how do you want a measure of complexity to be a predictor for cadence when these 2 things are at best orthogonal?