Comments on: Scrum Gathering day one and two http://www.andybrandt.net/502/scrum-gathering-day-one-and-two A stream in the sea... Sat, 04 Sep 2010 22:51:59 +0200 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: They Could Have Been Contenders - Cory Foy, LLC - Agile Training and Consulting - Enterprise Agility Redefined http://www.andybrandt.net/502/scrum-gathering-day-one-and-two/comment-page-1#comment-58313 They Could Have Been Contenders - Cory Foy, LLC - Agile Training and Consulting - Enterprise Agility Redefined Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:33:58 +0000 http://www.andybrandt.net/?p=502#comment-58313 [...] by a board they hardly knew, a CSM Test that no one could say for sure what was going on, and unsatisfied feelings by some (OK, OK, I know, Andy’s hard to please anyway. [...] [...] by a board they hardly knew, a CSM Test that no one could say for sure what was going on, and unsatisfied feelings by some (OK, OK, I know, Andy’s hard to please anyway. [...]

]]> By: Mike Cohn http://www.andybrandt.net/502/scrum-gathering-day-one-and-two/comment-page-1#comment-58163 Mike Cohn Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:54:36 +0000 http://www.andybrandt.net/?p=502#comment-58163 Andy-- Thanks for the great summary of the Gathering. I'm glad you liked my lunchtime session. I wanted to add a few comments on other things you raise: I'm sorry that I wasn't there on Tuesday for the Q&A with the Scrum Alliance Board. Attendance at the Gathering was a last-minute addition to my schedule. I had work in Norway and Sweden and was able to shift my Sweden work to the end of this week, allowing me to be at the Gathering at all. But, as you noticed, unfortunately for only one day. I suspect the Board members looked tired at the Q&A because they were; they'd flown in on Sunday mid-day. I know for me that I survive the first full day of jet lag well and then get more tired as the week progresses. It could have hit them on Tuesday, especially with the stress of putting on the event. I'm glad the staff members were all energetic and did well in the Q&A. I think most had been in Munich for 3-4 days longer and so were likely more adjusted. I'll have to disagree on the Scrum Alliance Board having a lack of vision. I think we have a very solid one and I think that will start becoming apparent. I've been on the board I think 3 weeks so we need time to figure a few things out. We also know we're under a microscope and we will always need to balance the community's lust for "total transparency" with some things that cannot be discussed in public. For example, should we discuss the salaries of those staff members of the SA in public? No. That's a minor example but there will be other issues where the answer can be public but discussion will need to be trusted to those on the board. Are those on the board an "old boys club"? Gee, I'd hope not. The reason I quit the board 12-18 months ago was to open room up for non-trainers to be on the board. We did that. There are at least 3 people on the board who you probably couldn't have named or would have known of yet were significantly involved with Scrum in their companies. Personally, I don't want the board made up of trainers or anyone who makes a living from Scrum. In a time of crisis, though, I think it was logical to reach out to such people including Lowell and myself. Now that crisis is over we need a way to have an elected board. Boardmember Dan will be leading an effort with heavy community involvement to figure that out. But I do think we need to stick with the current board possibly plus a member or two for now. It's too disruptive to have too much as I suspect you'd agree with. Maybe in 6 months or certainly no more than 12 I'd hope we could have an election or nominations or something to get new people on (and me off since I don't plan or want to do this forever). I can understand those who want to push Scrum to non-software areas and encourage their efforts. Those aren't my goals, though. I'm a software guy and I want to use Scrum to manage software projects and to manage software companies (which I think is close enough). I won't be in the way of broadening efforts but they won't get my passion. Things like getting clear criteria for becoming a CST is on the list as is improving the test. We made an organizational backlog at the board meeting and Tom will be sharing it within the next couple of weeks. Let's revisit this post a year from now and see how we've done. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. -Mike Andy–
Thanks for the great summary of the Gathering. I’m glad you liked my lunchtime session.

I wanted to add a few comments on other things you raise: I’m sorry that I wasn’t there on Tuesday for the Q&A with the Scrum Alliance Board. Attendance at the Gathering was a last-minute addition to my schedule. I had work in Norway and Sweden and was able to shift my Sweden work to the end of this week, allowing me to be at the Gathering at all. But, as you noticed, unfortunately for only one day.

I suspect the Board members looked tired at the Q&A because they were; they’d flown in on Sunday mid-day. I know for me that I survive the first full day of jet lag well and then get more tired as the week progresses. It could have hit them on Tuesday, especially with the stress of putting on the event. I’m glad the staff members were all energetic and did well in the Q&A. I think most had been in Munich for 3-4 days longer and so were likely more adjusted.

I’ll have to disagree on the Scrum Alliance Board having a lack of vision. I think we have a very solid one and I think that will start becoming apparent. I’ve been on the board I think 3 weeks so we need time to figure a few things out. We also know we’re under a microscope and we will always need to balance the community’s lust for “total transparency” with some things that cannot be discussed in public. For example, should we discuss the salaries of those staff members of the SA in public? No. That’s a minor example but there will be other issues where the answer can be public but discussion will need to be trusted to those on the board.

Are those on the board an “old boys club”? Gee, I’d hope not. The reason I quit the board 12-18 months ago was to open room up for non-trainers to be on the board. We did that. There are at least 3 people on the board who you probably couldn’t have named or would have known of yet were significantly involved with Scrum in their companies. Personally, I don’t want the board made up of trainers or anyone who makes a living from Scrum. In a time of crisis, though, I think it was logical to reach out to such people including Lowell and myself. Now that crisis is over we need a way to have an elected board. Boardmember Dan will be leading an effort with heavy community involvement to figure that out. But I do think we need to stick with the current board possibly plus a member or two for now. It’s too disruptive to have too much as I suspect you’d agree with. Maybe in 6 months or certainly no more than 12 I’d hope we could have an election or nominations or something to get new people on (and me off since I don’t plan or want to do this forever).

I can understand those who want to push Scrum to non-software areas and encourage their efforts. Those aren’t my goals, though. I’m a software guy and I want to use Scrum to manage software projects and to manage software companies (which I think is close enough). I won’t be in the way of broadening efforts but they won’t get my passion.

Things like getting clear criteria for becoming a CST is on the list as is improving the test. We made an organizational backlog at the board meeting and Tom will be sharing it within the next couple of weeks.

Let’s revisit this post a year from now and see how we’ve done.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
-Mike

]]>