| Newsgroups |
gmane.comp.programming.scrum.general |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
I appreciate the responses. The best they are going to do now is heavy weighting to individuals who cause team success. It was a win for me just to have them let go of putting their initials on the task stickies for the purpose of getting individual credit. "Small moves, Ellie, small moves.” :)
> On Jun 12, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Ron Jeffries [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Charles,
>
>
>> On Jun 12, 2015, at 6:25 PM, Charles Bradley - Professional Scrum Trainer and Coach [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> Ron, I agree that it is unclear... but let me see if I can make it better, then if I can, I'll suggest changes to Jeff (He and I had traded emails earlier on clearing up the article).
>>
>> Imagine these notes under the headings as such:
>>
>> The Process Takes Three Meetings to Initialize
>> (In the Review Template <http://jeffsutherland.com/review_template.html> linked down below, this section refers to the "Individual Performance" part of that Review Template)
>>
>> and..
>> The Review Ratings
>> (In the Review Template <http://jeffsutherland.com/review_template.html> linked down below, this section refers to the "Development Team Rating..." part of that Review Template)
>>
>> While this may not be the best way to fix the article -- does the above help your "shared understanding" of how the review process works?
>>
>> (One other "hole" is who does the "Company Rating" on the Review Template)
>
>
> Might work. As it is, it won’t compile, much less run. :)
>
> Ron Jeffries
> ronjeffries.com <http://ronjeffries.com/>
> Master your instrument, master the music, then forget all that shit and just play. -- Charlie Parker
>
>
>