Re: [OSE] Digest for opensourceecology@googlegroups.com - 1 Message in 1 Topic

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Mia Van Meter

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 2:01:30 AM4/10/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com
What resources would the Scrum master have at their disposal to use to eradicate blocks and impediments? Resources = access to decision makers, money, and non-monetary resources. Could the scrum master call for a swarm, in the current model?

How long is this release? How will we measure velocity? Do we have a product owner and/or a product back log (with points or estimates)?

Can impediments be placed on the product back log?

Mia

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM, <opensour...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology/topics

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group opensourceecology.
You can post via email.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty message.
For more options, visit this group.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Source Ecology" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensour...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecol...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology?hl=en.

Joe Justice

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 2:14:23 PM4/10/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com, teamwi...@googlegroups.com
resources: The scrum master makes the waste generated by the block visible. If it is in their power to unblock it, they do- typically they have a "petty cash" budget to by tools or small items when the team needs them. This is totally different than the operating budget, which the product owner wields. Tasks they do not have the resources to unblock, they make visible to those that can- like the product owner, or stake holders, or the organization above that if we are unfortunate enough to be copying with the dysfunctional overhead of an organization that is more hierarchical than the stake holder above the product owner. By showing the waste created by the block, the person with the resources to solve it can take that task into their backlog and prioritize it against the rest of their work.

That's question 1, the rest of the questions we'll have to come later when we all have more time. A great book in the meantime: Personal Kanban by Jim Benson. It can be read in 6 to 8 hours.

Matt Maier

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 3:40:17 PM4/10/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com, teamwi...@googlegroups.com
What's the rationale for three levels of management? A scrum master, product owner and stake holder seems like overkill. I'm not sure I understand the need for two middle managers in a "lean" organization. Is that necessary when the workload passes some kind of tipping point? Is it a division of expertise?
-Matt Maier

Simon Walter-Hansen

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 4:03:56 PM4/10/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com

Hi Matt,

If you check out scrum on the ose wiki, you can read about the 4 specific team roles. These are the minimum roles used to create a sustainably effective agile team.

Cheers!
-Simon

Matt Maier

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 4:36:40 PM4/10/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com
 
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see much in the way of explanation for why multiple levels of management are necessary. Is it a continuity thing? Like, scrum masters are expected to come and go, so we need a permanent product owner to overlap many scrum masters?
 
I guess my issue is that I don't see an obvious division of labor. I see the scrum master and the development team doing a lot of work, but then I see a whole gang of managers above them handing down "strategy." What is a product owner or a stakeholder expected to do that takes up so much of their time/effort? Why not just roll them into the same person at first and only separate them out if it's necessary?

Joe Justice

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 4:49:48 PM4/10/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com
Ideally the Customer is the Stake Holder, and they are the Product Owner (vision holder). In OSE's case, Marcin is the Stake Holder (funder, provides resources), and since we have 50 GVCS machines but just one Marcin, we find 50 customers (people who will use the product and use something similar to it now), who have a clear end-state vision, and are ready to be trained (usually 2 days) to become Product Owners.

Matt Maier

unread,
Apr 10, 2012, 8:44:18 PM4/10/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com
So...normally the person who is eventually going to buy the product/service would be the stakeholder. Whether the organization goes to them, or they come to the organization, they are the one who is going to pay for and use the product/service provided by the organization. Therefore, they define what the organization provides. In this case, Marcin is going to take the place of the customer, and the people who would best represent future customers are going to work for Marcin? 

That makes sense given that OSE is a non-profit. However, it does highlight the question: how much of this is demand-driven and how much is supply-driven? I'm right there with everyone else in terms of wanting to fix a perceived problem. I won't argue the point that people don't know what they want until it's shown to them. But is it possible we're tacking too hard in the direction of supply-driven goals? 

One of the pages I looked at on the wiki called it "agilebutt" or something like that. Apparently you either are agile or you aren't. If you say, "We're agile, but..." then you don't see the benefits. So, what's the rationale behind replacing the customers with Marcin? Why not just leave Marcin as the executive officer of a "company" that serves customers? If it is Marcin's desires that define the stories, then OSE will be entirely supply-driven. It will only produce what its members want to make. 

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding the process/vocabulary, but shouldn't Marcin be on the "developer" side of things rather than the "stakeholder" side of things? Also, from a strategic point of view, wouldn't it make sense to start finding actual customers for these things? So far the only independent replication I've seen is the D&H Tractors kids in LA, and in that case the people it's being built for didn't even ask for it. It's going to be mighty uncomfortable if we get to the end of the year, and have a first generation GVCS, and THEN have to start beating the bushes looking for people who might actually buy and use it.

Actually...maybe that is just a misunderstanding on my part. Would it be more accurate to assume that OSE is both the customer and the developer? If the plan isn't to get others to use the GVCS, but rather to build it and then in-house use it to make an actual village and recruit people to live in it...then the description you gave makes a lot more sense. In that case Marcin WOULD be the traditional stakeholder and he would be hiring developers to build the product/service he wants. It's just a little mixed up in that OSE would be both the user and the developer's boss, rather than only one of the two.

Or, if I'm just totally off base please let me know :-)
Cheers
-Matt

Aaron Makaruk

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 3:44:20 PM4/14/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com
The OSE specs are the customer, probably along with the concept designer for each product and finally Marcin himself. 

We are putting out the GVCS Civilization Starter Kit to facilitate replication, others are replicating beyond D&H - see them here:  http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Replication 

Also, check out the results of the demographics survey here, people are indicating their interest in replicating this year and within three years:

The customer will shift as we transition from building the GVCS to supporting replication and documenting people's ideas for the advancement of innovation. At that point, the customer will be everyone in the world who cares to use the designs. In the meantime, we could start gathering people's ideas for improvement, but ultimately it will take someone with the will to do it. Matt, that could be you - no one is stopping you from doing it. Does Marcin have the time to set up the feedback system - almost certainly he doesn't.

Priorities right now include the organizational infrastructure to make this sustainable, we have to scale, and there is a bunch of technical planning to do - for the July 1st ramp up. If you want to see something happen, go for it, take up the slack and make it happen and prove that your theory is truly a better way - everyone would support that - start testing the soundness of your ideas - you don't need to get it approved by Marcin. 

Aaron
-Matt

To post to this group, send email to opensourceecology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Source Ecology" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensourceecology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Source Ecology" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensourceecology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Source Ecology" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensourceecology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Source Ecology" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensourceecology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Source Ecology" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensourceecology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensourceecology?hl=en.



--
Joe Justice
Team Lead, Seattle, WA, USA


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open Source Ecology" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensourceecology@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensourceecology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

Matt Maier

unread,
Apr 14, 2012, 6:48:52 PM4/14/12
to opensour...@googlegroups.com
Hey Aaron, thanks for responding to my barely-adequately-informed questions. My comments are in-line:

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Aaron Makaruk <aaronm...@gmail.com> wrote:
The OSE specs are the customer, probably along with the concept designer for each product and finally Marcin himself. 

I don't want to waste anyone's time with silly questions, but is there a difference between those three things? My impression is that Marcin personally defined the OSE specs and concepts. I haven't heard of anyone else being cited. If that's at least reasonably accurate, then Marcin "is the customer," right? At least in the agile/lean/scrum vocabulary. 

We are putting out the GVCS Civilization Starter Kit to facilitate replication, others are replicating beyond D&H - see them here:  http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Replication 

I'm familiar with the list. As we've already discussed, this could just be a difference of opinion on how OSE can best build value. I think it's by encouraging replication and evolution ASAP, but OSE-actual thinks it's by developing the entire system in-house and then releasing a massive instructional manual complete with manufacturing capacity. So, OSE is prioritizing collaboration, not independent replication. There aren't enough open source technology case studies to really say which approach will work faster, so it's a minor point.

Also, check out the results of the demographics survey here, people are indicating their interest in replicating this year and within three years:

LOL, somehow that's a perfect example of why I keep asking so many questions. The document is locked; not just for editing, but for viewing. Am I misinterpreting the phrase "radical transparency?"
It's okay, I assume by "demographic survey" you mean the community needs assessment. I summarized it so I'm familiar with the results. I did see people expressing interest in building/using the machines, which is great. 

The customer will shift as we transition from building the GVCS to supporting replication and documenting people's ideas for the advancement of innovation. At that point, the customer will be everyone in the world who cares to use the designs. In the meantime, we could start gathering people's ideas for improvement, but ultimately it will take someone with the will to do it. Matt, that could be you - no one is stopping you from doing it. Does Marcin have the time to set up the feedback system - almost certainly he doesn't.

I'm not sure if this was directly in response to something in the previous email or to something outside the email.

So...if Marcin, who is OSE, doesn't think "gathering people's ideas for improvement" is a high priority, why would you suggest that I go do it by myself? Marcin specifically mentioned mesh telephony in OSE's blog, but not "ideas for improvement." His section of the Wikispeed task board has a "a hyper multitool for assembly of entire car." My impression is that "gather ideas for improvement" isn't even an OSE consideration, let alone a low priority. I'm assuming the people in charge are competent, so that must mean I'M the one who is misunderstanding something. Thus, the questions. I'm creative and motivated and stuff but I'd prefer to spend my limited free time helping advance OSE's goals, based on the assumption that the people running it full-time have a better idea of what needs to be done next than I do. 

Priorities right now include the organizational infrastructure to make this sustainable, we have to scale, and there is a bunch of technical planning to do - for the July 1st ramp up.

Okay, anything I can do to help with that? I was (am) doing documentation, is that no longer a high priority? I'm still interested in coming out to FeF to help in person.
 
If you want to see something happen, go for it, take up the slack and make it happen and prove that your theory is truly a better way - everyone would support that - start testing the soundness of your ideas - you don't need to get it approved by Marcin. 

It's only "slack" if it's part of the same rope. I'm not interested in competing with OSE. 

Aaron

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages