Timeline for Who should attend Sprint Replanning?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 25, 2016 at 13:31 | vote | accept | Rodrigo Molinero Gómez | ||
| Jan 21, 2016 at 20:53 | comment | added | jason.t.knight | Well said @CodeGnome. This is exactly right and demonstrates the flexibility of the Scrum Framework to support the principle of agility that states, "Welcome changing requirements, even late in development. Agile processes harness change for the customer's competitive advantage." | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 2:15 | comment | added | Todd A. Jacobs♦ | @MrHinsh That is incorrect. The Sprint Goal is meant to guide implementation details, not to allow the Development Team to change scope unilaterally. In fact, the Scrum Guide explicitly says: "No changes are made that would endanger the Sprint Goal" (The Scrum Guide, 2013; p. 7) defined during Sprint Planning for the current increment. If you are still unclear on this, I would strongly recommend that you open a new question so that you can receive more thorough answers on this related topic. | |
| Jan 21, 2016 at 1:50 | comment | added | MrHinsh - Martin Hinshelwood | The scrum guide agrees with #2 and #3 but not #1. The purpose of the Sprint Goal is to slow the Development Team to change scope without PO intervention. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 15:56 | comment | added | zeeple | This feels very trigger happy to me. Yes, the PO should be informed when scope decreases and asked what can drop from the sprint, but for it to trigger an early termination is very process heavy. Developers get poached all the time and stories occasionally turn out to be bigger than thought. It is less disruptive to meet and discuss the decrease in scope without all the ceremony. Besides, there is not reason why the decrease in scope couldn't be a topic in the already planned retrospective. | |
| Jan 20, 2016 at 15:40 | history | edited | Todd A. Jacobs♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fix grammar.
|
| Jan 20, 2016 at 12:56 | history | answered | Todd A. Jacobs♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |