@mjj screen sharing is nice, but I miss a whiteboard. Firing up MS Paint for that is such a hack

@rocky1138 @Tijn cool! i just wish I weren't bound to the decisions made by my employer's purchasing dept, which probably got a really good deal from MS for buying their entire range of products

Maybe you don't care about the EU's digital sovereignty. But let's be serious for a moment - the chance of getting rid of MS Teams does sound exciting, right?

@ahltorp oh yeah, that's true. Scrum got a pretty bad rep. Just mention the name and people roll their eyes thinking of tedious stand ups

@ahltorp what I mean with integral is that you can take velocity tracking away (and certifications, and story points, and trainers, and planning poker, and whatever fluff they try to upsell you) and you can still do the whole Scrum thing: empiricism, the events, the roles.

Those 3 things have always been there from the beginning. They change here and there a bit, but overall that's Scrum. That's why it's a framework. Being dogmatic about implementation is pretty much the least Agile thing

@ahltorp @travisfw I read the Scrum guide first in 2014 or so, after starting off with all kinds of books that add tons of extra complexity.

It's kinda liberating how simple Scrum can be. I feel the simpler you keep it, the more powerful it is.

And if in doubt between the Scrum guide and what helps your team: Talk to your team FIRST about what works for them - that's what Retrospectives are for - that's pretty much in line with Schwaber's book that I mentioned in my other reply. People first!

@ahltorp @travisfw well, yes, it's been part of the Scrum "story" just like certifications, trainers and whatnot. But it's not integral to Scrum.

You can do Scrum without "Velocity". You can use any other method to a) track how much work you do (better = track how much value is delivered and realized) and b) how much you can commit and reliably deliver at the end of the sprint (overcommitting = disappointed client).
You could track man-hours instead, and it works.

@ahltorp @travisfw The oldest book I have in my library is Schwaber's "Software Development with Scrum" from 2002, which is quite interesting. It's a lot more people / culture focused than even the Scrum guide (there's just so much you can write on 11 pages). They do have burndowns there, but even their they put in bold that it's (delivered) "results" that matter. The burndown shows how much work remains so you can plan. That's it. Overall the book feels very close to the Agile Manifesto

@thordis Generation C64

@ahltorp @crazyeddie @mwshook @PavelASamsonov Velocity has nothing to do with Scrum. It's mentioned exactly 0 times in the Scrum guide. And that is really where the problem with "Scrum" starts... the Scrum-Industrial-Complex tries to sell you all this extra crap on top... (Jira, story points, planning poker, and whatever crap you can turn into a paid-for training...or book!)

@PavelASamsonov That's the truth about it. I know people who read tons of books about Scrum, yet failed to read the 11 page (certainly not a book!) Scrum Guide, which is really all you ever need to read about it.

95% of Scrum books just complicate and confuse matters over something that should be really quite simple.