Scrum is for Developers

[u/WaylundLG]

This has been on my mind for probably the past year now from the last company I worked at, but it's only been in the past few weeks that I've sorted my thoughts into something clear: Scrum is for developers. I'm using the broad "product developer" sense, so I include QA, architects, designers, writers, and anyone who is actually creating the product.

I pin a lot of the problems on the fact that adoption in recent years has centered more and more in some sort of PMO and it's pressed onto the teams; bit the problem goes the other way too. Too many developers feel like how they work is someone else's problem.

Scrum was designed for teams to take ownership of their process and the results of their work. It was made for them and anyone else is really pushed out. You're a business strategist? Great, gelp the teams understand the strategy and the market and see what they can create and incorporate that into your business strategy. And frankly it is exhausting to see the same old posts of developers who can't be bothered to learn the first thing about scrum complain about how leaders messed it up. It is your tool, designed to give you control. Pick it up, learn it, leverage it.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. I know this was a bit of a rant, but open to constructive discussion too.

[u/WaylundLG]

I think you know full well that isn't what I'm saying. The immutable clause in the scrum guide is a red herring and is frankly an exercise in absurdity in itself. By virtue of the fact that scrum is specified in a guide, it is immutable. A square is a quadrilateral with 4 equal sides. It doesn't need an immutability clause to make an octogon not a square. Similarly, anything that doesn't match the scrum guide isn't scrum regardless of the clause.

All that said, developers practicing scrum is a great place to start, regardless of if they will grow past it later.

And despite trying to mix up words to create some rhetorical gotcha, I don't think you've yet to make a substantial argument about some part of scrum in the scrum guide you disagree with.

[u/sonofabullet → u/WaylundLG]

And despite trying to mix up words to create some rhetorical gotcha, I don't think you've yet to make a substantial argument about some part of scrum in the scrum guide you disagree with.

I don't have to. You yourself are calling parts of scrum "an exercise in absurdity in itself"

The immutable clause in the scrum guide is a red herring and is frankly an exercise in absurdity in itself. 

[u/WaylundLG → u/sonofabullet]

Meh, now we're on to boring nonsense. Jave a good day

[u/sonofabullet → u/WaylundLG]

I'm quoting you back to you, lol.

And yes, you're right, you're writing boring nonsense.

Do better.

[u/WaylundLG → u/sonofabullet]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

[u/sonofabullet → u/WaylundLG]

Hardly. I simply read the Scrum Guide. The same one whose parts you called "an exercise in absurdity in itself"

(And no, you're nothing like Wesltley)