| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.programming.scrum.general |
| Message-ID |
<CALaPUVe_hY1fJe35Q3vgv5s67gNizhFh5YFNk3Ycy2Jup_LZPw@mail.gmail.com> |
Imagine you had a team about the size that Scrum and XP recommend. Given
that, if you want to know how the PO is doing you ask him/her. [After this
follows a long conversation about scale, 18th century management theory,
and how software is different... you will have to pay me if I have to have
that conversation again.]
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Dan Greening [email protected]
[SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> A simple test for good PO behavior would be Turing incomplete or worse
> "prescient". Product Management is necessarily complex, otherwise everyone
> would be inventing something new that was instantly loved by millions.
>
> However, there are some practices that can help. I think
> http://senexrex.com/pattern-product-owner/ reveals some, particularly the
> idea of a "geometric backlog", that allow team members to quickly view a
> proposed future and consider it as they are writing short-term code.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Dan R. Greening — http://dan.greening.org http://linkedin.com/in/greening
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:09 PM, Ron Jeffries [email protected]
> [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hennadii,
>>
>> On May 26, 2015, at 11:39 AM, [email protected]
>> [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Prob some trivial example, if PO keeps pulling to the top low severity
>> bugs instead of more valuable critical bugs, that I'd say something could
>> be done differently. Or, as another example, if some PBI has been too long
>> on backlog (lead time) and so on. One more example could be PO spending too
>> much time on 'detailing' PBIs deep down the backlog
>>
>>
>> Why wouldn’t a simple chat with the PO sort this out, if it ever happened?
>>
>> Ron Jeffries
>> www.XProgramming.com <http://www.xprogramming.com>
>> Sometimes you just have to stop holding on with both hands, both feet,
>> and your tail, to get someplace better.
>> Of course you might plummet to the earth and die, but probably not: you
>> were made for this.
>>
>>
>
>