orthodoxy?

[Ron Jeffries]

I'm soliciting your thoughts on a knotty question:

Recent discussions about Dan Rawsthorne's Release Sprint "GASP" article have revolved around whether actually recommending such a thing is Generally Accepted. Given the number of Release Sprints in the world, I question whether Dan is the only one recommending them, but you'd be a fool to admit it now that the witch hunt is on.

The discussion reminds me, painfully, of what we went through in order to get the Core page to a point where it was acceptable. The Curators were finally put in a position where we had to come up to a page such that NO TRAINER would refuse to use it. We got to the state where no trainer SAID they wouldn't use it. I don't know whether all trainers actually use it or not.

We are now in a position where the Core page cannot be updated, lest someone disagree with it. Our tentative plan for future revisions is to form an "Editorial Council" who will do the revision. If they are subject to the same rule of unanimous consent, this will not really make the problem any easier. And if not, there will likely be some people who dissent. Then what?

The same approach has been proposed for GASPs: have a council who decides. We're left with the question of who is on the council and what happens when some vocal people who are not on the council object that the thing is not "Generally Accepted". Will we have to do a plebiscite of the Trainers? The Trainers and Coaches? The entire Scrum Alliance? The world?

My purpose here is not to whine about the difficulty of getting agreement. (At least not entirely.) Instead, I want to ask two related questions:

First, is the purpose of the Agile Atlas to create an orthodoxy? Is it to say what is and is not canon? Is it to say what is and is not generally accepted? Or is the purpose of the Agile Atlas to present reasonably curated and edited articles about important considerations and information relating to Scrum, Agile, and related topics? The stated purpose is the last. In practice, we've been called upon to do the former.

Second, is it the purpose of the Scrum Alliance to create such an orthodoxy? Is the purpose of the Scrum Alliance to define what Scrum is and is not? Is its purpose to promote Scrum over all other non-Scrum ideas? Or is it something else, like transforming the world of work through promotion of a wider range of good ideas.

I recall some years ago, when the Smalltalk Industry Council (STIS(!)) held a meeting and announced that its new purpose was not to promote Smalltalk to Industry, but to promote Object-Oriented technology to Industry instead. At that meeting, "Big Dave" Thomas declared that plan to be "bullshit", in so many words. 

One could argue that for the Scrum Alliance to look beyond Scrum is just as bad. It's not for us to decide what the Scrum Alliance is to do: that's up to the Managing Director and ultimately the board. Either way, they need to decide.

Then, they need to decide whether the Agile Atlas effort is consistent with that decision. If the decision is that the Alliance looks beyond pure Scrum, then the decision is pretty easy. But even if the Scrum Alliance's own purpose were to be "Scrum Only", supporting ideas that help Scrum practitioners to succeed is still a potentially strong strategy, especially when we consider the CSP program, which surely calls for members to learn all the many skills and practices that go into a successful Scrum implementation, over and above the Scrum framework.

My inclination is that either way, the Agile Atlas should not be a place for Scrum (or any other) orthodoxy, and that therefore the Core page, and the notion of "Generally Accepted" may not belong there at all.

Please offer your thoughts on this. Thanks!

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

I don't necessarily agree with everything I say. -- Marshall McLuhan

[Dan Rawsthorne]

I see the AgileAtlas as the source material for the test; its original intent was to be the 95% of Scrum that 95% of the Trainers believe in... In order to have a certification test that will stand up to scrutiny, it needs to have a source. I think that the AgileAtlas is that source; that it is the moral equivalent of the PMBOK. In that sense, it becomes (unfortunately) divorced from actual practice - but this is what happens when a growing, vibrant, changing, thing has a certification test. So, I think it should consist only of the Core Page, because the GASPs raise the question "are they good practices or not?" and the question for the AgileAtlas should be "is it on the test, or not?" And then, of course, make sure the test matches the AgileAtlas... just sayin'...

BTW, I DO recommend the AgileAtlas to my students as part of my followup email. I think it's a good source for a generally accepted, vanilla version of scrum. Looking at it will help the students pass the test, and what I teach is slightly different because I'm helping them become better developers, not better test-passers.

Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, PMP, CST
3Back.com
1-855-32-3BACK x323
Author of Exploring Scrum: the Fundamentals

--
You are in this forum as a guest. Please govern yourself accordingly.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AgileAtlas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to agileatlas+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agileatlas.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Daniel James Gullo]

What are your thoughts on having only two categories:  Core Scrum and Everything Else?  The "Everything Else" would be a series of articles or position papers, etc. which the community could vote on.  Then, you would have something more like "9/10 trainers think that this article is pure bullshit." etc.  Or, at least, a mechanism like Wikipedia where someone can flag something as "Not Safe For Agile" or some such.  Then, we aren't making a subjective statement like "Generally Accepted" or "Good" or "Bad".  It's merely "Here's the approval rating for this article." or "1000 people found it helpful, 500 people found it harmful, etc." Or maybe a net-approval score or a more nuanced Likert score.

As for the precise subject of Release Sprints:  Do they exist?  Yes.  Are they Core Scrum? Absolutely not.  Are they recommended?  No.  Are they necessary along the path of getting to an ideal end state?  Possibly, it depends.  I wouldn't call that "Generally Accepted".  It's generally known that people speed when driving.  Can we say that it's generally accepted that it's ok to speed?  No, it's still illegal.  Is speeding recommended then? No.  It's unsafe and against the law.  Are there some cases where speeding is necessary?  Possibly...  etc.

敬礼-

Daniel Gullo  古龙丹尼尔

CSC, CST

Trinacria Consulting

daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com
302-276-4454

I am speaking at:

2013 Scrum Gathering Paris ( September 23-25 ) - #sgcdg

[Ron Jeffries]

Dan,

You are describing the Core page, not the Agile Atlas, it seems to me

R

On Jul 16, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Dan Rawsthorne <dan.raw...@drdansplace.com> wrote:

I see the AgileAtlas as the source material for the test; its original intent was to be the 95% of Scrum that 95% of the Trainers believe in... In order to have a certification test that will stand up to scrutiny, it needs to have a source. I think that the AgileAtlas is that source; that it is the moral equivalent of the PMBOK. In that sense, it becomes (unfortunately) divorced from actual practice - but this is what happens when a growing, vibrant, changing, thing has a certification test. So, I think it should consist only of the Core Page, because the GASPs raise the question "are they good practices or not?" and the question for the AgileAtlas should be "is it on the test, or not?" And then, of course, make sure the test matches the AgileAtlas... just sayin'...

BTW, I DO recommend the AgileAtlas to my students as part of my followup email. I think it's a good source for a generally accepted, vanilla version of scrum. Looking at it will help the students pass the test, and what I teach is slightly different because I'm helping them become better developers, not better test-passers.

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

I know we always like to say it'll be easier to do it now than it

will be to do it later. Not likely. I plan to be smarter later than

I am now, so I think it'll be just as easy later, maybe even easier.

Why pay now when we can pay later?

[Ron Jeffries]

Hi Daniel,

On Jul 16, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Daniel James Gullo <daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com> wrote:

What are your thoughts on having only two categories:  Core Scrum and Everything Else?  The "Everything Else" would be a series of articles or position papers, etc. which the community could vote on.  Then, you would have something more like "9/10 trainers think that this article is pure bullshit." etc.  Or, at least, a mechanism like Wikipedia where someone can flag something as "Not Safe For Agile" or some such.  Then, we aren't making a subjective statement like "Generally Accepted" or "Good" or "Bad".  It's merely "Here's the approval rating for this article." or "1000 people found it helpful, 500 people found it harmful, etc." Or maybe a net-approval score or a more nuanced Likert score.

I think that the structure {singleton, {lots of stuff}} is obviously bad design.

An approval rating is an interesting idea. Is popularity what we seek in our articles?

As for the precise subject of Release Sprints:  Do they exist?  Yes.  Are they Core Scrum? Absolutely not.  Are they recommended?  No.  Are they necessary along the path of getting to an ideal end state?  Possibly, it depends.  I wouldn't call that "Generally Accepted".  It's generally known that people speed when driving.  Can we say that it's generally accepted that it's ok to speed?  No, it's still illegal.  Is speeding recommended then? No.  It's unsafe and against the law.  Are there some cases where speeding is necessary?  Possibly...  etc.

It must in fact be generally accepted to speed if most people do it.

I agree that Release Sprints should not be recommended. I think that Dan Rawsthorne should be able to recommend them, and the many others who surely are, without being convicted of heresy. I think a thoughtful person could conclude that being perpetually ready to ship is too difficult, and too unlikely, to recommend. 

My real question, though, is about orthodoxy: is the purpose of the Agile Atlas to say what God wants us to do, or something else? If something else, then it seems likely to me that removing any notion of "generally acceptable" would be a simple step, although the voting thing is interesting. But who can vote?

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

Sometimes you just have to stop holding on with both hands, both feet, and your tail, to get someplace better. 

Of course you might plummet to the earth and die, but probably not: you were made for this.

[Daniel James Gullo]

Couching it as "popularity" does highlight potential issues; e.g. ~160 people who train Scrum know that x is incorrect but 10,000 people vote that it is correct.  That doesn't make x correct but would make it popular.  Maybe leaving it to the CSC/CST community to vote on, since that's seems to be where the discussions and input are happening currently.  Then, it would be like polling the medical community on medical practices and not the world at large...

Another option is having Core Scrum and Commentary in the form of debate or Pros/Cons; e.g. There's an objective statement defining "Release Sprint" and then folks write in defense or against the concept and its compatibility with Scrum.

Removing GASPs altogether sounds like the safest bet.  "This is Scrum... if it ain't in here, it ain't Scrum."  Period.  Then the Scrum Alliance is just promoting Scrum and not all manner of other practices, which we aren't certifying anyway.  What do you think about the idea that at some point, perhaps the so-called GASPs are so commonly used that they should be incorporated into Scrum?  Was Scrum meant to be completely static for all eternity?

敬礼-

Daniel Gullo  古龙丹尼尔

CSC, CST

Trinacria Consulting

daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com
302-276-4454

I am speaking at:

2013 Scrum Gathering Paris ( September 23-25 ) - #sgcdg

[Markus Gaertner]

Late in 2007 I read a book with several lessons on software testing in it. Some of them were contradicting others. For example Lesson 145 states "Use the IEEE Standard 829 for test documentation", Lessons 146 states "Don't Use the IEEE Standard 829". The book is called "Lessons learned in software testing". It changed how I thought about testing. It changed my career. It eventually changed my life.

That said, when it comes to the Agile Atlas, I think we need to make our expectations more clearly when we promote orthodox or contradicting practices. Scrum (and Agile for that matter) is a paradigm shift to most organizations.

Best

Markus

--
You are in this forum as a guest. Please govern yourself accordingly.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AgileAtlas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to agileatlas+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agileatlas.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Dipl.-Inform. Markus Gärtner
Author of ATDD by Example - A Practical Guide to Acceptance Test-Driven Development

http://www.shino.de/blog
http://www.mgaertne.de
http://www.it-agile.de
Twitter: @mgaertne

[Ron Jeffries]

Hi Daniel,

On Jul 16, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Daniel James Gullo <daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com> wrote:

Couching it as "popularity" does highlight potential issues; e.g. ~160 people who train Scrum know that x is incorrect but 10,000 people vote that it is correct.  That doesn't make x correct but would make it popular.  Maybe leaving it to the CSC/CST community to vote on, since that's seems to be where the discussions and input are happening currently.  Then, it would be like polling the medical community on medical practices and not the world at large…

Perhaps more like polling surgeons on medical practice. It's the AGILE Atlas ...

Another option is having Core Scrum and Commentary in the form of debate or Pros/Cons; e.g. There's an objective statement defining "Release Sprint" and then folks write in defense or against the concept and its compatibility with Scrum.

Yes, that's why we have the articles labelled "Controversy" now ...

Removing GASPs altogether sounds like the safest bet.  "This is Scrum... if it ain't in here, it ain't Scrum."  Period.  Then the Scrum Alliance is just promoting Scrum and not all manner of other practices, which we aren't certifying anyway.  What do you think about the idea that at some point, perhaps the so-called GASPs are so commonly used that they should be incorporated into Scrum?  Was Scrum meant to be completely static for all eternity?

I am leaning toward removing GASPs, but not toward removing information. For example, an article on Test-Driven Development seems likely to be acceptable to most people, and of value to everyone who does software with Scrum.

Yet TDD IS NOT SCRUM! This is why it's the Agile Atlas, not the Scrum Atlas.

As for redefining Scrum, it is my strong opinion that Ken and Jeff get to say what Scrum IS, and no one else. The rest of us get to interpret it, to give our personal advice, of describe good ways of doing it, and so on. But to me the inventors get to say what it IS.

Regards,

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way.  -- Jessica Rabbit

[Mark Levison]

I'm in favour of people not just voting but signing their names to articles.

I'm also in favour of vacations and I will be offline now for 2 1/2 weeks.

Cheers
Mark

Ron Jeffries wrote:

Hi Daniel,

On Jul 16, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Daniel James Gullo <daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com> wrote:

Couching it as "popularity" does highlight potential issues; e.g. ~160 people who train Scrum know that x is incorrect but 10,000 people vote that it is correct. �That doesn't make x correct but would make it popular. �Maybe leaving it to the CSC/CST community to vote on, since that's seems to be where the discussions and input are happening currently. �Then, it would be like polling the medical community on medical practices and not the world at large�

Perhaps more like polling surgeons on medical practice. It's the AGILE Atlas ...

Another option is having Core Scrum and Commentary in the form of debate or Pros/Cons; e.g. There's an objective statement defining "Release Sprint" and then folks write in defense or against the concept and its compatibility with Scrum.

Yes, that's why we have the articles labelled "Controversy" now ...

Removing GASPs altogether sounds like the safest bet. �"This is Scrum... if it ain't in here, it ain't Scrum." �Period.� Then the Scrum Alliance is just promoting Scrum and not all manner of other practices, which we aren't certifying anyway. �What do you think about the idea that at some point, perhaps the so-called GASPs are so commonly used that they should be incorporated into Scrum? �Was Scrum meant to be completely static for all eternity?

I am leaning toward removing GASPs, but not toward removing information. For example, an article on Test-Driven Development seems likely to be acceptable to most people, and of value to everyone who does software with Scrum.

Yet TDD IS NOT SCRUM! This is why it's the Agile Atlas, not the Scrum Atlas.

As for redefining Scrum, it is my strong opinion that Ken and Jeff get to say what Scrum IS, and no one else. The rest of us get to interpret it, to give our personal advice, of describe good ways of doing it, and so on. But to me the inventors get to say what it IS.

Regards,

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way. �-- Jessica Rabbit

--
You are in this forum as a guest. Please govern yourself accordingly.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AgileAtlas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to agileatlas+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agileatlas.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

�
�

--
Cheers
Mark Levison
Agile Pain Relief Consulting | Writing
Proud Sponsor of Agile Tour Gatineau Ottawa Nov 28, Toronto 26 and Montreal 24

[Ron Jeffries]

So far it sounds like there is great interest in having the site be "orthodox" and having a voting process to ensure that it is.

How will that fit in with what seems to me to be a clear need to have information that is not "pure" Scrum?

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

I have two cats, and a big house full of cat stuff. 

The cats fight and divide up the house, messing up their own lives. 

Nice work cats. 

Meow.

[Mark Levison]

Ron Jeffries wrote:

So far it sounds like there is great interest in having the site be "orthodox" and having a voting process to ensure that it is.

I don't want orthodoxy - you're talking to a reform jew here. I would prefer a spectrum/continuum. The more CST/C's who sign the closer to the core it is :-)

Cheers
Mark

How will that fit in with what seems to me to be a clear need to have information that is not "pure" Scrum?

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

I have two cats, and a big house full of cat stuff. 

The cats fight and divide up the house, messing up their own lives. 

Nice work cats. 

Meow.

--
You are in this forum as a guest. Please govern yourself accordingly.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AgileAtlas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to agileatlas+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agileatlas.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Ron Jeffries]

Hi Mark,

On Jul 16, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Mark Levison <ma...@mlevison.com> wrote:

I don't want orthodoxy - you're talking to a reform jew here. I would prefer a spectrum/continuum. The more CST/C's who sign the closer to the core it is :-)

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. What if we had Lean people signing? Or Kanban people? Or ...

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

It's true hard work never killed anybody, but I figure, why take the chance?

-- Ronald Reagan

[Mark Levison]

Well we're the Scrum Alliance so I would only expect CST/C to sign.
Cheers
Mark

[Ron Jeffries]

Why not all SA members? Why not CDPs? Why not CSMs and CSPOs? Why not CSDs?

R

On Jul 16, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Mark Levison <ma...@mlevison.com> wrote:

Well we're the Scrum Alliance so I would only expect CST/C to sign. 

[Mark Levison]

Because I have some evidence that the CST/Cs know Scrum. I've some evidence that some CSPs don't.

Cheers
Mark

[Mike Dwyer]

I do not see votes or popularity answering the question are these posts generally accepted scrum practices.  the only way I can placing an item in this section is through wide spread, documented use.

Examples that come to mind.

      Test Driven Development/Design

      XP engineering discipline

      User Stories

      Story Points

      Story Sizing

      Release Planning

      Roadmapping

      ABC levels of Scrum

     

Authoring books, articles, and holding seminars and workshops are reasonable ways to gain users, but are insufficient actions to warrant inclusion.

[Dan Rawsthorne]

Yes, I am. But I'm not sure they will actually be separated in people's minds.

Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, PMP, CST
3Back.com
1-855-32-3BACK x323
Author of Exploring Scrum: the Fundamentals

[Dan Rawsthorne]

Not to mention not cost-effective, so violating need for PO to maximize ROI from sprint-to-sprint... Just sayin'...

Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, PMP, CST
3Back.com
1-855-32-3BACK x323
Author of Exploring Scrum: the Fundamentals

[Dan Rawsthorne]

Might have to be a different site. Might not be able to be sponsored by the SA (?)

Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, PMP, CST
3Back.com
1-855-32-3BACK x323
Author of Exploring Scrum: the Fundamentals

[Ron Jeffries]

Dan,

On Jul 16, 2013, at 10:24 PM, Dan Rawsthorne <dan.raw...@drdansplace.com> wrote:

Might have to be a different site. Might not be able to be sponsored by the SA (?)

Having Scrum practitioners succeed is in the best interests of the SA. Having them succeed because of the SA is in the best interests of the SA. Therefore a compendium of support information on all subjects important to Scrum practitioners is in the best interests of the SA.

I think the better thing is to move the orthodox material to the Scrum Alliance site and the useful information kept in the Atlas.

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

Don't ignore your dreams; don't work too much; say what you think; cultivate friendships; be happy. -- Paul Graham

[Dan Rawsthorne]

I like that idea, Ron. Let the SA have our version of the Scrum Guide...

Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, PMP, CST
3Back.com
1-855-32-3BACK x323
Author of Exploring Scrum: the Fundamentals

[Vernon]

+1 for this idea.

Thanks,

Vernon

[Daniel James Gullo]

+1

敬礼-

Daniel Gullo  古龙丹尼尔

CSC, CST

Trinacria Consulting

daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com
302-276-4454

I am speaking at:

2013 Scrum Gathering Paris ( September 23-25 ) - #sgcdg

[Daniel James Gullo]

Great post, Kurt.  

In terms of contributors to the Atlas, I think anyone ought to be able to write a post and submit it.  However, it would be reviewed by the board of whom you speak as an initial screening.  It's a great idea to keep the Atlas as a more general body of Agile topics, AND when it comes to an entry on Scrum, two options could be:  the article refers only to the SA pages on Scrum or the article cross references the SA definition, the Scrum Guide, and other sources which claim to say what Scrum is.

In terms of Core Scrum, yes, definitely should be hosted on the SA website.  Right now, all we have are the learning objectives for CSM.  (There aren't any official ones for CSPO yet, though we did some work on that last year, thanks to Dave Prior et al.)  

With all due respect (and thanks!) to Jeff and Ken, I think Scrum should be able to evolve over time based on the spirit which Scrum embodies: inspecting and adapting.  I wouldn't expect massive changes in a short period of time.  Maybe just some of those so-called GASPs are so widely used that they ought to be included in the definition of Scrum; sort of like how there are Done criteria that eventually apply to all items and eventually become part of the DoD.  Over time, if elements don't apply any more or they aren't relevant, they would be removed.  The most effective way to accomplish this is by council or committee, not 1000s of people and not just 1-2 people.  These folks would be elected or appointed by the SA board, etc.

We (the SA) are already saying "This is definitively what Scrum is..." so we are already departing from what the creators have said Scrum is.  If we would rather defer to Jeff and Ken on what Scrum is, then that makes all of this really simple:  halt the efforts on and sunset the Scrum Core.  We'll use the Scrum Guide instead.

敬礼-

Daniel Gullo  古龙丹尼尔

CSC, CST

Trinacria Consulting

daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com
302-276-4454

I am speaking at:

2013 Scrum Gathering Paris ( September 23-25 ) - #sgcdg

On Jul 17, 2013, at 4:46 , Kurt Nielsen <kurt.b....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all, as often happens with these discussion, we in remote time-zones (seen from the US) only discover the flurry of posts, when all the excitement is over :-).

Since this is something that matters a lot to me, I was carefully reading everything from the start and finally came to this post by Ron, which more less says what I wanted to say, but here it is anyway.

1. I think the Agile Atlas is a great idea, and great to have a collection experiences and viewpoints, more on this later. 

2. I think it is a bad idea to have the Scrum core page, sort of the basis for the SA test buried inside the Atlas, the SA should have this under the SA web-site. Since this was introduced I have had so many questions from students, "why is there", "why is it not a Scrum Atlas, this is a Scrum course right?"

The material we have now serves two distinctively different purposes. I still do not understand what happened during all the commotion about the CSM test, but it seems to me that it just happened without design. So here is what I think

Agile Atlas:

1. A place to navigate your course in all things agile, find information experience and such.  it is Ok for me if that means only software, after all the Agile Manifesto is focused on SW.

2. The Agile Atlas should have its own decision structure, a board if you will that selects/appoints and editor/moderator. I don't know what the legal status of the Atlas is today, perhaps Ron and Chet constitute the board, perhaps the original Agile Manifesto guys.

3. The board who can be accepted as contributors and the overall layout of the site (the categories) and perhaps the tags that can be applied to articles ("GASP", "Controversial" etc.)

4. The Editor appoints his helpers (like Santa and his elves) and implement things in real life.

5. We can then start to play with tagging and voting, and people can see how different groups of people view the different articles. In fact I think I have a good idea for this based on techniques from Dave Snowdens Cynefin framework.

6. I believe - as it has been said - that whoever passes judgement on an article does it with his/her name and a comment explaining the reason.

Lots of more details

The Scrum core page:

1. The SA has introduced the CSM test, I guess because we were told that certification is a joke if it doesn't have a test, and then "oh by the way, what is the test based on?" "Auch! The Scrum Guide belongs to a competitor, Scrum.org" or maybe it is Ken and Jeff. "We need our own" - in comes the core page on the Agile Atlas. We won't start the discussion about the test again, it is here, we have to get over it an get on with it.

2. The SA need to take ownership of the foundation for its CSM test, and align it with learning objectives and welcome-emails sent out. And this need to be the same for the CSPO, a year after the launch of the CSM test we still (to my knowledge) have not even an embryo of a test for CSPO.

3. The SA need to come up with a way of being able to update this whole body of material, that includes translation. As one of the translators, I can assure you that now updates have been made, and no structure to it (in my knowledge) is in place.

The SA need to come clear on whether the SA defines Scrum (since we test people, one would assume that me know what we are testing) or whether Scrum is defined by the fathers (Ken and Jeff) as Ron says. When Ron issues a statement like that I tend to take it - if not as God speaking - at least as the Pope speaking, the curator of the right interpretation. If this is correct, that Ken and JEFF are Benevolent Dictators for Life (BDFL),  then we should test against the Scrum Guide. Alternatively we could do like other frameworks, languages or patterns do (Prince - Prince2, Algol60 - Algol 68) that is use versioning. So the SA could define Scrum13 as the latest and greatest definition against which we test when he hand out certification. It is really like an acceptance criteria.

OK that is it. In fact I will copy Carol on this and see if she wants to move on it.

All the best, Kurt

[Ron Jeffries]

Testing Postbox for the first time. I blame it for anything bad that happens below, even in my phrasing or ideas. :)

Hi Kurt, good stuff ...

Kurt Nielsen

July 17, 2013 4:46 AM

Hi all, as often happens with these discussion, we in remote time-zones (seen from the US) only discover the flurry of posts, when all the excitement is over :-).

Far from over, I'm sure ...

... So here is what I think

Agile Atlas:

1. A place to navigate your course in all things agile, find information experience and such.  it is Ok for me if that means only software, after all the Agile Manifesto is focused on SW.

2. The Agile Atlas should have its own decision structure, a board if you will that selects/appoints and editor/moderator. I don't know what the legal status of the Atlas is today, perhaps Ron and Chet constitute the board, perhaps the original Agile Manifesto guys.

Chet and I started the Agile Atlas, as an outgrowth of the Agile Skills Project. Both the Project and the Atlas are supported by the Scum Alliance. We are presently the Curators of the Atlas. We are working with Carol on creation of an Editorial Council. At t his moment I'm not sure exactly what the purpose should be. I can think of these main purposes:

• Solicit, shepherd, edit articles. 
• Help define the site's organization.
• Share the blame for politically "hot" concerns such as Core and (apparently) GASPs.
  

3. The board who can be accepted as contributors and the overall layout of the site (the categories) and perhaps the tags that can be applied to articles ("GASP", "Controversial" etc.)

Yes, that's what the Curators do now ...

4. The Editor appoints his helpers (like Santa and his elves) and implement things in real life.

That has been what's happening so far. There is some advantage, we think, to having at least part of the Council elected. One question, of course, is who can vote.

5. We can then start to play with tagging and voting, and people can see how different groups of people view the different articles. In fact I think I have a good idea for this based on techniques from Dave Snowdens Cynefin framework.

I'm concerned about this. I'm aware of very few sites where this kind of thing goes on. Wikipedia is one quite successful one, of course. Possibly in due time we should have that kind of a model, and we do have access to some people who know about that. Right now the larger concern seems to be getting articles at all.

6. I believe - as it has been said - that whoever passes judgement on an article does it with his/her name and a comment explaining the reason.

Signed votes would be good. If comments were strongly edited, they might be OK. The level of acrimony that sometimes shows up here would not do.

Lots of more details

The Scrum core page:

1. The SA has introduced the CSM test, I guess because we were told that certification is a joke if it doesn't have a test, and then "oh by the way, what is the test based on?" "Auch! The Scrum Guide belongs to a competitor, Scrum.org" or maybe it is Ken and Jeff. "We need our own" - in comes the core page on the Agile Atlas. We won't start the discussion about the test again, it is here, we have to get over it an get on with it.

Yes, that was the reasoning. At the time it seemed wise to have a Scrum Alliance information basis for the test. I can imagine people trying to influence this but for now, yes, it's a done deal.

2. The SA need to take ownership of the foundation for its CSM test, and align it with learning objectives and welcome-emails sent out. And this need to be the same for the CSPO, a year after the launch of the CSM test we still (to my knowledge) have not even an embryo of a test for CSPO.

Yes ... we are currently the delegated owners for the Core, except that we are constrained to have no one refuse to use it.

3. The SA need to come up with a way of being able to update this whole body of material, that includes translation. As one of the translators, I can assure you that now updates have been made, and no structure to it (in my knowledge) is in place.

I hope that no substantive updates have been made. You're entirely correct that there is no official translation service nor infrastructure for it. We have been hoping that updates of substance would be infrequent. I would be delighted to toss the whole Core problem off to someone else, or to have it turn out that we could just follow the Scrum Guide. I fear that is not to be.

The SA need to come clear on whether the SA defines Scrum (since we test people, one would assume that me know what we are testing) or whether Scrum is defined by the fathers (Ken and Jeff) as Ron says. When Ron issues a statement like that I tend to take it - if not as God speaking - at least as the Pope speaking, the curator of the right interpretation. If this is correct, that Ken and JEFF are Benevolent Dictators for Life (BDFL),  then we should test against the Scrum Guide. Alternatively we could do like other frameworks, languages or patterns do (Prince - Prince2, Algol60 - Algol 68) that is use versioning. So the SA could define Scrum13 as the latest and greatest definition against which we test when he hand out certification. It is really like an acceptance criteria.

Yes. I consider myself to be neither God nor the Pope, but I do take a long view of things and am as method-agnostic as I can possibly be. To me it is simply common sense that the people who define a method should be its owners unless they explicitly set it free. I think of myself as trying to explain XP or Scrum or Crystal, not to define them. I also express my own opinions as to what works, and why.

Regards,

Ron
(as yet without signatures in Postbox)

[Ron Jeffries]

Hi Daniel,

Daniel James Gullo wrote:
> In terms of contributors to the Atlas, I think anyone ought to be able
> to write a post and submit it. However, it would be reviewed by the
> board of whom you speak as an initial screening. It's a great idea to
> keep the Atlas as a more general body of Agile topics, AND when it
> comes to an entry on Scrum, two options could be: the article refers
> only to the SA pages on Scrum or the article cross references the SA
> definition, the Scrum Guide, and other sources which claim to say what
> Scrum is.

Yes, the current board does exactly that kind of screening. We get so
few articles that we don't really need much help but if there were more
editors maybe they'd do better than we do at hunting down articles. In
areas like declaring what is GASP, I do not think more people would help
and I'd like to get out of that business.

I am leaning more and more toward moving "official" positions off the
Atlas and onto the SA site. I do not, however, agree that the SA should
define Scrum. That would be like me rewriting your book and publishing
it under my name. And probably just as illegal by the way.

>
> In terms of Core Scrum, yes, definitely should be hosted on the SA
> website. Right now, all we have are the learning objectives for CSM.
> (There aren't any official ones for CSPO yet, though we did some work
> on that last year, thanks to Dave Prior et al.)

Yes, I am leaning that way ...

>
> With all due respect (and thanks!) to Jeff and Ken, I think Scrum
> should be able to evolve over time based on the spirit which Scrum
> embodies: inspecting and adapting. I wouldn't expect massive changes
> in a short period of time. Maybe just some of those so-called GASPs
> are so widely used that they ought to be included in the definition of
> Scrum; sort of like how there are Done criteria that eventually apply
> to all items and eventually become part of the DoD. Over time, if
> elements don't apply any more or they aren't relevant, they would be
> removed. The most effective way to accomplish this is by council or
> committee, not 1000s of people and not just 1-2 people. These folks
> would be elected or appointed by the SA board, etc.

I strongly disagree. The creators of a thing get to say what that thing
is. If I wanted to define a method, I would not call it Extreme
Programming: that belongs to Kent Beck. If the Scrum Alliance wants to
define a method, they should do so, and give it a new name.

>
> We (the SA) are already saying "This is definitively what Scrum is..."
> so we are already departing from what the creators have said Scrum is.
> If we would rather defer to Jeff and Ken on what Scrum is, then that
> makes all of this really simple: halt the efforts on and sunset the
> Scrum Core. We'll use the Scrum Guide instead.

I favor the latter approach. The Core, by the way, is not "definitively
what Scrum is". First of all, we worked very hard to have it entirely
consistent with the Guide. Second, it is the basis for the test and as
far as I know says nowhere that it is "definitively what Scrum is".

Regards,

Ron
(hmm, must work out how to do sigs real soon now ...)

[Peter Stevens]

I recommend the Agile Atlas (or Peter Hundermarks Do Better Scrum) to my students before they take the class. They are small enough that people will actually read them before the class.

I also teach that there is no such thing as a best practice, because practices are always context dependent - the underlying principles are more important - so solving your own problems and understanding the why of particular solution is essential.

GASP sounds like "we don't want to admit that there are best practices, but here they are..."

I am wondering if we could make the notion of "generally accepted" more social and dynamic.

What if we, as coaches and trainers, could give a "how likely are you to recommend" to each "GASP" and our explanation of why? How would that encourage the understanding of these practices?

Peter

On 16.07.13 12:13, Dan Rawsthorne wrote:

I see the AgileAtlas as the source material for the test; its original intent was to be the 95% of Scrum that 95% of the Trainers believe in... In order to have a certification test that will stand up to scrutiny, it needs to have a source. I think that the AgileAtlas is that source; that it is the moral equivalent of the PMBOK. In that sense, it becomes (unfortunately) divorced from actual practice - but this is what happens when a growing, vibrant, changing, thing has a certification test. So, I think it should consist only of the Core Page, because the GASPs raise the question "are they good practices or not?" and the question for the AgileAtlas should be "is it on the test, or not?" And then, of course, make sure the test matches the AgileAtlas... just sayin'...

BTW, I DO recommend the AgileAtlas to my students as part of my followup email. I think it's a good source for a generally accepted, vanilla version of scrum. Looking at it will help the students pass the test, and what I teach is slightly different because I'm helping them become better developers, not better test-passers.

Dan Rawsthorne, PhD, PMP, CST
3Back.com
1-855-32-3BACK x323
Author of Exploring Scrum: the Fundamentals

On 7/16/2013 8:50 AM, Ron Jeffries wrote:

I'm soliciting your thoughts on a knotty question:

Recent discussions about Dan Rawsthorne's Release Sprint "GASP" article have revolved around whether actually recommending such a thing is Generally Accepted. Given the number of Release Sprints in the world, I question whether Dan is the only one recommending them, but you'd be a fool to admit it now that the witch hunt is on.

The discussion reminds me, painfully, of what we went through in order to get the Core page to a point where it was acceptable. The Curators were finally put in a position where we had to come up to a page such that NO TRAINER would refuse to use it. We got to the state where no trainer SAID they wouldn't use it. I don't know whether all trainers actually use it or not.

We are now in a position where the Core page cannot be updated, lest someone disagree with it. Our tentative plan for future revisions is to form an "Editorial Council" who will do the revision. If they are subject to the same rule of unanimous consent, this will not really make the problem any easier. And if not, there will likely be some people who dissent. Then what?

The same approach has been proposed for GASPs: have a council who decides. We're left with the question of who is on the council and what happens when some vocal people who are not on the council object that the thing is not "Generally Accepted". Will we have to do a plebiscite of the Trainers? The Trainers and Coaches? The entire Scrum Alliance? The world?

My purpose here is not to whine about the difficulty of getting agreement. (At least not entirely.) Instead, I want to ask two related questions:

First, is the purpose of the Agile Atlas to create an orthodoxy? Is it to say what is and is not canon? Is it to say what is and is not generally accepted? Or is the purpose of the Agile Atlas to present reasonably curated and edited articles about important considerations and information relating to Scrum, Agile, and related topics? The stated purpose is the last. In practice, we've been called upon to do the former.

Second, is it the purpose of the Scrum Alliance to create such an orthodoxy? Is the purpose of the Scrum Alliance to define what Scrum is and is not? Is its purpose to promote Scrum over all other non-Scrum ideas? Or is it something else, like transforming the world of work through promotion of a wider range of good ideas.

I recall some years ago, when the Smalltalk Industry Council (STIS(!)) held a meeting and announced that its new purpose was not to promote Smalltalk to Industry, but to promote Object-Oriented technology to Industry instead. At that meeting, "Big Dave" Thomas declared that plan to be "bullshit", in so many words. 

One could argue that for the Scrum Alliance to look beyond Scrum is just as bad. It's not for us to decide what the Scrum Alliance is to do: that's up to the Managing Director and ultimately the board. Either way, they need to decide.

Then, they need to decide whether the Agile Atlas effort is consistent with that decision. If the decision is that the Alliance looks beyond pure Scrum, then the decision is pretty easy. But even if the Scrum Alliance's own purpose were to be "Scrum Only", supporting ideas that help Scrum practitioners to succeed is still a potentially strong strategy, especially when we consider the CSP program, which surely calls for members to learn all the many skills and practices that go into a successful Scrum implementation, over and above the Scrum framework.

My inclination is that either way, the Agile Atlas should not be a place for Scrum (or any other) orthodoxy, and that therefore the Core page, and the notion of "Generally Accepted" may not belong there at all.

Please offer your thoughts on this. Thanks!

Ron Jeffries

www.XProgramming.com

I don't necessarily agree with everything I say. -- Marshall McLuhan

--
You are in this forum as a guest. Please govern yourself accordingly.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AgileAtlas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to agileatlas+...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/agileatlas.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Peter Stevens]

Actually, I like a people's choice and expert's choice voting. It will be illuminating. It might even shed some interesting light on the CSP program.

Peter

On 17.07.13 05:47, Daniel James Gullo wrote:

+1

����-

Daniel Gullo  �������

[Ron Jeffries]

Peter,

On Jul 18, 2013, at 6:27 AM, Peter Stevens <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:

Actually, I like a people's choice and expert's choice voting. It will be illuminating. It might even shed some interesting light on the CSP program.

It might. At present I have no practical idea on how it might be implemented. I've never seen a web site that had anything like that. Advice welcome.

[Daniel James Gullo]

There are many different crowdsourcing solutions these days.  One that I thought worked well for Mile High Agile submissions was:  http://ideascale.com/  An engine like that could be used to power the voting and commenting aspect of article responses.

敬礼-

Daniel Gullo  古龙丹尼尔

CSC, CST

Trinacria Consulting

daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com
302-276-4454

I am speaking at:

2013 Scrum Gathering Paris ( September 23-25 ) - #sgcdg

[Ron Jeffries]

Daniel,

On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Daniel James Gullo <daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com> wrote:

There are many different crowdsourcing solutions these days.  One that I thought worked well for Mile High Agile submissions was:  http://ideascale.com/  An engine like that could be used to power the voting and commenting aspect of article responses.

Interesting … looks like of costly? Seems like with some custom work one could build it in. Did Mile High just use it naked?

[Daniel James Gullo]

I have to defer to Brad Swanson on the implementation.  I think they may have simply setup a site through IdeaScale's interface.  My thought was to do something similar, not necessarily IdeaScale but the same idea.  Naturally, a build or buy decision would need to be made.  From a user's perspective, I liked it being able to vote and comment on things.  Also, seeing others commenting and voting.  All with authenticated users, not just open to anonymous folks.  If we didn't like the idea of restricting it to CSC/CSTs, we could simply key off of SA registrants in general somehow.  They are already validated by virtue of their certifications and would be an added benefit to membership:  you can vote and comment on Agile Atlas articles.

敬礼-

Daniel Gullo  古龙丹尼尔

CSC, CST

Trinacria Consulting

daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com
302-276-4454

I am speaking at:

2013 Scrum Gathering Paris ( September 23-25 ) - #sgcdg

[Ron Jeffries]

I'm concerned about integrating it with the site. The site is kind of the point ...

R

On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Daniel James Gullo <daniel...@trinacria-consulting.com> wrote:

I have to defer to Brad Swanson on the implementation.  I think they may have simply setup a site through IdeaScale's interface.  My thought was to do something similar, not necessarily IdeaScale but the same idea.  Naturally, a build or buy decision would need to be made.  From a user's perspective, I liked it being able to vote and comment on things.  Also, seeing others commenting and voting.  All with authenticated users, not just open to anonymous folks.  If we didn't like the idea of restricting it to CSC/CSTs, we could simply key off of SA registrants in general somehow.  They are already validated by virtue of their certifications and would be an added benefit to membership:  you can vote and comment on Agile Atlas articles.

[William Tozier]

On Jul 16, 2013, at 5:23 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronje...@acm.org> wrote:

So far it sounds like there is great interest in having the site be "orthodox" and having a voting process to ensure that it is.

Surely I am not the only one grinning wryly at the irony of specifying global agreement on the standards and specifications by which they teach people to try things to see if they work and adapt to changing environments?

William Tozier
bi...@vagueinnovation.com