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.
--
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.
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.
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.
--
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.
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?
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.
--
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.
�
�
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 JeffriesI 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.
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 :-)
Well we're the Scrum Alliance so I would only expect CST/C to sign.
Cheers
Mark
Well we're the Scrum Alliance so I would only expect CST/C to sign.
Because I have some evidence that the CST/Cs know Scrum. I've some evidence that some CSPs don't.
Cheers
Mark
Might have to be a different site. Might not be able to be sponsored by the SA (?)
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 thinkAgile 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 detailsThe 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
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 :-).
... 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:
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 detailsThe 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.
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!
www.XProgramming.com
Ron JeffriesI 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.
+1
����-
Daniel Gullo �������
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.
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.
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.
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.