Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 19, 2018 at 21:23 comment added Curtis Reed The attached article is passionately written, I'll give you that. Nevermind that it describes conditions that are NOT "agile", but are actually antithetical to the objectives of agile. Much of what it states is not even Scrum, but misunderstandings or purposeful misrepresentations of Scrum. And it exhibits a profoundly arrogant perspective that business should be run by engineers, rather than being focused on the business. The objective of business is to sell product. The argument that engineers are somehow as good at this as business leaders is insanely arrogant.
Aug 18, 2017 at 13:44 comment added Jared Smith @Peter to explain my upvote: If a process is potentially good but most of the time intelligent and well-meaning people screw it up then it is not a good process.
Aug 18, 2017 at 10:47 comment added Peter To explain my downvote: You do have a point. But what you and the article link is not what I understand to be Scrum at all, not even close, that's why I downvoted (I'm a former Scrum Master (even certified, as if that matters)). It's plain bad project management, with a Scrum label. You can have bad project management with any label. You do have a point because what the OP describes also isn't a functional Scrum implementation.
Aug 16, 2017 at 15:01 history edited user2394284 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 285 characters in body
Aug 16, 2017 at 14:55 history edited user2394284 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 285 characters in body
Aug 16, 2017 at 14:05 history edited user2394284 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 51 characters in body
Aug 16, 2017 at 13:34 history edited user2394284 CC BY-SA 3.0
added 140 characters in body
Aug 16, 2017 at 10:33 review First posts
Aug 16, 2017 at 15:00
Aug 16, 2017 at 10:29 history answered user2394284 CC BY-SA 3.0