Hermeneutics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Wow, you are a sad, sad man.

What you said was "In daily Scrum meeting only the team and the Scrum Master are allowed by definition."

Which is fairly unequivocal. "By definition" the Scrum is open to observation by any actors outside the time.

Also, in many settings it is not "the team's right" since management and product owner sponsor the process.

Nevertheless in any sensible interpretation of Scrum only the bits that are relevant should be retained. My main issue of the wording is that these things are often taken up literally, even if only at the start. The sole purpose of the daily standup should be to facilitate open and candid communication between team members - it should specifically "not" be a show-and-tell for the the rest of the business.

It's an oldie but a goodie (-:

no, really, you're a super guy. you've convinced me.

Sounds good. I don't think it really matters the size of the organisation, though it does seem to be the bigger ones that are pushing it more. Perhaps the problems it seeks to solve are artefacts of organisational malaise where people just aren't as engaged or communicating any more. Yes Scrum is hugely time & effort intensive, and that is a fact that you must be aware of before having a go at it, and if "shit just gets done" well enough as it is you'd be best of staying clear. In dysfunctional organisations blamestorming happens anyway, but at least this way the playing-field is levelled.

Yes but in my case it's a medically prescribed suppository.

Except that Waterfall isn't really a process at all. It's an antipattern that emerges when you take a laissez faire approach to the fulfilment of your development activities. If you check the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Royce presented this model as an example of a flawed, non-working model; which is how the term is generally used in writing about software development—to describe a critical view of a commonly used software development practice."

What Scrum "is" (or was) was an attempt to actively describe, or codify, the kind of things that effective teams do anyway.

Scrum is a good starting point and provides at the very least a suite of "exercises" which you can use to develop team and business collaboration. It can't compensate for poor technical leadership, though it might make such a deficiency more apparent.

Not quite. In daily Scrum meetings only the team and the Scrum Master are allowed *to participate*. Product owners, non-team business stakeholders, or anybody else for that matter are permitted but they have to stay quiet. Nevertheless I believe that the mere "presence" of these actors can have a negative effect on the quality of discussion ...

https://www.mountaingoatsoftwa...