Talk:Scrum (software development)

Cleaning up

OK, I started cleaning up the Scrum page. It is starting to make more sense, but definitely needs additional work. rnd 12:38 AM 7/01/07

Inaccurate Link - please correct

The link title "Agile Values" links to the Agile Alliance. These are two different things, and should probably both be represented:

Agile Values and Principles: www.agilemanifesto.org Agile Alliance: www.agilealliance.org

thanks, Deborah Hartmann deborah.hartmann.net

Videos

The Videos section seems to violate WP:LAYOUT. I've moved the section to what I consider a more appropriate part of the article based on WP:FURTHER. However, I think the links in there really belong in the External Links section rather than having their own section. Even better, relevant information would be placed in the article and the videos used as references, with less substantial videos simply removed.

This page sucks

This page sucks, it goes into lots of inane details and names without providing a comprehensive description of the core ideas, the improvements compared to previous processes and most importantly the rationale behind them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.235.152.186 (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It explains what needs to be explained. If you want to address some of what you see as shortcomings, feel free to. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it explains nothing. Re-read the introduction. "Scrum is a radically new approach making everyone happy. It concentrates on being superior and solving everyone's problems".. I wonder if there's even a single word related to *what Scrum actually is*/ I agree with 2.235, article sucks. -- 176.109.79.241 (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As the initial definition of scrum did not specify how requirements have to be specified, I'd suggest either removing the '(typically user stories)' or clarify that best practices have shown, that user stories work well with scrum (citation needed of course). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.196.66.222 (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because Scrum doesn't address requirements gathering. Agile itself doesn't say how requirements are to be gathered either. However, user stories and use cases are the most common forms of requirements gathering. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is something fundamental lacking here. It describes the effects of scrums and how it is implemented leaving aside the goal of scrum. I looked for the presence of something in here saying the objective is to produce fully functional, working software, ready to release to customers and failed to find it. It's buried in implementation detail. Yet this is the objective of a sprint and at the heart of what scrum is. A cross functional team trying to produce working software within a timebox. JCastle4 (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's not the problem here. This article simply lacks a clean explanation of what scrum is. Not what it tries to be, not how it wants to be named, not what objectives it has. What it IS. Compare "The dog is an animal of such and such species which looks like this" and "The dog is unique in that everyone loves it. It's objective is to find food and procreate and it aims to be the best at that." -- 176.109.79.241 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I mean, look at the introduction. If you leave only the informative parts, what it says is: Scrum is an iterative and incremental agile software development framework which uses mechanisms of empirical process control. That doesn't explain much. There's something about bringing decision-making authority to the level of operation properties and certainties, but I'm not sure that even those who wrote that understood that they were trying to say. What exactly ARE "operation properties and certainties"? Anything call be called a property. And how do you "bring" the "decision-making authority" to the "level of it"? -- 176.109.79.241 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Buzzwords & promotion

I guess that as with all management fads this comes with its truckload of buzzwords. But Wikipedia articles should not be written {{in universe}}. Basically this article consists largely of a long list of (re)definitions of usual, plain language terms into scrum lingo. There's not much in the way of explanation why you'd even want to bother with this... Also the article is devoid of any critical appraisals of this methodology; only primary sources promoting it are cited. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, as it exists now, the article does not seem too buzzwordy to me; perhaps it has been improved. It does define a lot of vocabulary words which are legitimately used in practice. I removed the buzzword tag; if there are still areas of concern, feel free to re-add and point out some examples and we can take a look. I do agree a critical viewpoint is needed; I started an empty "Criticism" section and tagged it for expansion. -- Beland (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Scrum Master

This section made no sense to me: The Scrum Master differs from that of a the Project Manager in that the latter may also have people management responsibilities in addition to the role of a Scrum Master. The Scrum Master role excludes any such additional people responsibilities.

I thought it might have meant: The Scrum Master differs from that of a the Project Manager in that while the latter may also have people management responsibilities, the Scrum Master role excludes any such additional people responsibilities.

However, I wasn't at all sure and decided not to edit it. Having worked with Scrum for 3 years, I fail to see why a scrum master cannot have people management responsibilities. I would have thought the position ideally suited to see the strengths and weaknesses in the team. However, it would depend on culture, if the team is of mixed ability and has a hierarchical structure I can see how the above might be true. Fortunately I do not work in such an environment. JCastle4 (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary timeboxes

In the meetings sections there are a lot of suggested timebox durations. These seem particularly pointless to me. A suitable duration for a meeting will depend on many things. E.g. the sprint planning meeting will be primarily determined by your sprint duration. However, it will also depend on the people. Scrum teams self organise and over time any rules get thrown out the window, so you have to know the fundamental things that make scrum work. Actually, I'm not sure that the self organising aspect of scrum comes across in this article. JCastle4 (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

ScrumMaster vs Scrum Master

I've just replaced all instances of "Scrum Master" in the article with "ScrumMaster". I've a few reasons for the change:

• Inconsistency within the article is a Bad Thing™, so the change makes the article self-consistent, and the choice between with/without space was fairly irrelevant.
• The article previously had ten instances of "ScrumMaster", and five of "Scrum Master", so I've picked the most popular version within the article.
• Google tells me there's such a thing as a "Certified ScrumMaster". Just like that, without the spaces.

I also capped up one version that was merely "scrum master" to match the rest of the article, for largely similar reasons.

—me_and 17:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Project management tools that support scrum

Updated section by correcting spelling mistakes, updating links, and adding newer tools to section, as well as added a section on an emerging feature that several of the tools are recently integrating into their feature set. Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Reference on JIRA + GreenHopper

I recognize this is a primary source, however any of the other tool entries in the list would have to be referenced to primary sources (since we're already passing judgement on their appropriateness by including them), or deleted altogether for lack thereof. It was also my intention to illustrate the difference between adding an inline link without contextual value and a proper reference. And yes, I missed a space :) §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to have primary sources, no. A secondary source could write about the same material. It would also confer notability. I'm not complaining, just pointing out that it was a primary source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ya, but I couldn't find one. There was the one guy who apparently promised to write a whole series of articles about the topic and never actually did :\ §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I was surprised to see VS isn't on that list, MS have a plugin for Scrum, although I've never used it. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That was just recently removed, or changed to Team Foundation Server by user:Jeffnailen. Feel free to add it back in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because it’s more accurate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_issue_tracking_systems

TFS is the more accurate analog to the other tools listed here in the agile and scrum literature. Context, context, context.

And yes, please feel free to revert backwards to the older less accurate form if the MO here is power and control rather than the accuracy of the actual content for readers. Jeff Nailen 23:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No one suggested that a revert is in order. I chose my words very carefully and wrote "add it back in" since it may have simply been an oversight on your part to have removed it or replaced it with Team Foundation Server.

Also Jeff, please sign your posts correctly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

"since it may have simply been an oversight on your part to have removed it or replaced it" another faulty assumption similar to your wrong assumption about the spelling of a proper name on which you based a revert of a spelling correction back to the misspelled form? It will save everyone time and your edits will more likely be contributions when they are based on easily confirmable facts rather than assumptions.

Also Walter, please stop deleting entire conversations from talk pages because they might be embarrassing to you. They provide context and a record for conversations on article talk pages. Jeff Nailen (Talk 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that I'm misrepresenting your edits. What I did was not a faulty assumption, it was WP:assuming good faith, which happens to be a pillar of Wikipedia. When you removed the product, you didn't explain why and so I assumed that you were actually making a good change. FreeRangeFrog didn't know that you had removed what he feels is a valid product. You still haven't explained why it was removed. So if you want to avoid assuming good faith, you can explain your edits in more detail in the edit summary.

Also Jeffnailen, WP:TPO#owntalk states in part: "Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." I removed it because I don't care about your misrepresentation of the facts and the lack of acknowledgement of the real problem: you don't know how to edit correctly. I have no intention of teaching you how to edit correctly, thanks. I also have no need to discuss that with you on my talk page. However, if you'd like to talk about calling me a Wikipedia Nazi (which is actually incorrect, and should have probably been a Wikipedia Gestapo, but it's a common error and so I understand) we can do that here as well or at WP:ANI, but since it was a first-time thing, I think you've learned about policy on making personal attacks.

The fact is that I did revert your entire edit because of your incorrect addition of external links in-line, which you have been informed is not acceptable. Your one correct portion was, unfortunately, a casualty of those reverts. If you think that's embarrassing for me, you're wrong. The fact that both lead to the same results in any search engine make the difference moot.

In short, your edits were not 100% good and as I stated on my talk page, once I recognized that you were getting upset about the small portion that was good, I didn't revert the edit any longer and simply removed the parts manually.

Back to the original point, the GreenHopper item is using a primary source, but that isn't the end of the world, but Wikipedia does prefer secondary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Since you deleted it once again, I'll place it here because it has direct bearing on the content of the article:

"While I understand that you can use external links in article spaces, the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking frowns on it in prose.

And tildes go after the prose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)"

That's fine, but in the future it may be more constructive to edit a contribution if the form doesn't fit your style preferences rather than deleting all of the substance/content. This back and forth wasted a lot of time and may discourage people from contributing content. Jeffnailen (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there's no way to save the material as we don't include items that don't have articles on that article so I can't remove the link and leave bare text. It makes no sense. What would be more constructive is reading the edit history to determine why the material keeps disappearing rather than editing it back time and time again. It will save you time and won't discourage you since that's the easy way of communicating. I suppose after you reinstated it, I should have discussed with you on your talk page at that point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Unless you meant in your early edits where you were turning Green Hopper into a compound word in camel case, in that case, I didn't catch that subtle change, which is why I made the changes manually afterward. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The name of their product is: GreenHopper, one word. It makes a difference when a reader searches for the term: if their search term is 'GreenHopper' they'll likely find the product page. I also took the time to add a link to it to save a shopper time which you deleted and misspelled the name of the product using two words. If a searcher searches for: Green Hopper, they're likely to find pages of info. on grasshoppers, not very useful.

Edit, don't delete. Editing is constructive. Deleting other peoples' content is destructive.Jeff Nailen 00:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't make a difference because if I google for "green hopper", the first thing that is returned is a link to GreenHopper. I didn't delete what you wrote. It's still there in the archive. I reverted your edits because they weren't constructive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so it should be reverted back to the misspelled version, yeah that's constructive. Form over substance? Formal rules can always be cited to rationalize anything when ego is at stake. Let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy:

“Thanks. By the way, what is Wikipedia policy regarding content not in alignment with the style manual? When encountering content, like a new contribution, that does not conform to the style manual what is Wikipedia policy for how to deal with it? Should all of the new content be deleted or should it be edited to conform to the style manual? Thanks. Jeff Nailen 00:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case it should be rewritten to conform the Manual of Style. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten rather than deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffnailen (talk • contribs) 01:16, 27 February 2013

Yes. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)...

Thanks. Yes, I know he was right about the link, my question is not about who's right or wrong. My question is about Wikipedia policy regarding best practices when someone encounters a contribution with such a mistake. Should the entire contribution from the writer be repeatedly deleted without explanation or should that mistake be edited/corrected to preserve the content? Which is a more constructive response, deleting or editing?... Jeff Nailen | Talk 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said partly. He should have corrected it, and not wholesale remove it. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)” Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I have the right to delete it.

You do not have the right to restore material to my talk page.

You also don't have the right to reproduce it here.

I have every right to remove the in-line external links and Green Hopper will return the same first result on Google as GreenHopper will so the point is still horribly moot.

The fact that you removed a product without explaining and still haven't restored it after having been told about it makes you an unconstructive editor, now with an WP:AXE to grind related to something that I have corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding: "However, if you'd like to talk about calling me a Wikipedia Nazi (which is actually incorrect, and should have probably been a Wikipedia Gestapo, but it's a common error and so I understand) we can do that here as well or at WP:ANI, but since it was a first-time thing, I think you've learned about policy on making personal attacks."

You know this is a disingenuous distraction. Here is what was said in context which can be seen on my talk page:

"Ah, you must be a Wikipedia Nazi.  ;-)

Thanks for starting my user page."

Emoticons such as the wink emoticon: ;-) are used to indicate a light-hearted joke. Context, context, context. I think you know that because you didn't say anything about it at the time. You're taking it out of context and putting it here on this page out of context in hopes that readers of this page won't realize the context in which it was written in order to make a false charge to distract from the actual content/substance of the article which is what anyone cares about.

I didn't mention your violation of the three-revert rule because it doesn't really have bearing on the actual content/substance of the article which is what anyone cares about, I just assumed good faith rather than intentional violation of the three-revert rule.

Of course you have the right to do this or that. It's not about your rights Walter. There is a larger context beyond your rights and my rights, your ego and mine: the actual content/substance of articles for readers. That should be the focus and the reason we're here, yes? Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

 Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No. Please follow the link to see where you called me that outright without any sort of commentary to mitigate the statement. Thanks for not pointing-out that I us broke WP:3RR, not that it matters. The larger context here is that the problem I created has been resolved and the one you did still hasn't been. So it's time to drop your WP:AXE and fix what you broke. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, again:

"Ah, you must be a Wikipedia Nazi.  ;-)

Thanks for starting my user page."

If you really feel that joke was an attack just file a complaint and we'll see what others have to say. But I think you know it's a distraction from the issue which is the actual content/substance of the article.

Context Walter. There is no reason to feel threatened by others' contributions. This is the nature of a public wiki which harnesses collective intelligence through network effects. This is not your little playground.

The larger context is that if someone makes a contribution that is not "100% good" as you say, then edit/correct that part of it which you believe to be "bad" instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's not all or nothing: 100% in Walter's eyes or 0%. That's black and white thinking, the fallacy of false dilemma. We don't always get what we want. But by correcting those parts that you believe to be "bad" then errors get corrected and the content of the article improves over time with more perspectives added.

But that gradual building upon others' contributions found in collective intelligence cannot occur if there is no contribution to build upon because someone has deleted the entire contribution because it is not "100% good," as you say, according to one perspective. That's my point, that editing is more constructive than deleting.

"Yeah, that's why I said partly. He should have corrected it, and not wholesale remove it. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)”

Jeff Nailen (Talk 23:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No again, you didn't click on the link provided above and again here: "I've encountered a Wikipedia nazi who insists on deleting an entire contribution I made to an article based on one little technicality." Your edit really didn't merit building on, which is why I removed it. Green Hopper yields the same search results. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You know very well that that was not the only contribution I made. See above: Updated section by correcting spelling mistakes, updating links, and adding newer tools to section, as well as added a section on an emerging feature that several of the tools are recently integrating into their feature set. Jeff Nailen (Talk 22:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the article before I contributed and after, which can easily be seen in the archive, I corrected a spelling mistake (GreenHopper), added a link to that product, fixed a dead/incorrect link to one of the other tools listed, updated one of the existing tools to the more accurate Team Foundation Server, added four tools to the list that were not there previously to the existing eight, bringing the total number to twelve increasing the list of tools by 50%, added a section about an important feature which has emerged in the industry with the integration of Scrum and Kanban regarding horizontal 'swimlanes' or 'pipelines' and listed the four products that have this new feature with links to the sites.

Your contribution: reverting back to the misspelling, taking away the link to GreenHopper, taking away the new feature category, etc. You didn't add any content. And all on the grounds that I didn't do the link properly. Wouldn't it have been much simpler to simply correct the link, or asking me to do so which I would have gladly done, than to go through all of this??

Your contribution is that you have wasted a lot of peoples' time. I don't see how you have added any value to that article. This is ridiculous and it's why Wikipedia has such a bad rep. My experience with you confirms many of the criticisms of Wikipedia as found on Wikipedia's own article about itself, altho others have been helpful. Jeff Nailen (Talk 00:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So you refuse to admit the personal attack. Fine.

I couldn't agree more that your bad edits are the reason that Wikipedia has such a bad rep. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude, relax. It was obviously a joke when I first wrote it as indicated by the emoticon. But you're doing a really good job convincing me that my joke may actually have some truth to it.

I suggest that if you don't want to be called that then don't be one. Jeff Nailen (Talk 00:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Three things.

1. You didn't write it with any emoticons here, so please stop trying to minimize the insult.
2. I am calm. When I mentioned it above, I also wrote "but since it was a first-time thing, I think you've learned about". Now that you've repeated it by saying "don't be one" I will be forced to tag you with an official warning. Why don't you just shut up when you're given the chance?
3. You're the editor making a big deal out of something that has been corrected. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

OMG what did your parents do to you? Are you a teen? Jeff Nailen (Talk 00:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)