Re: PO at retro

Jean,

I think a problem lies in the phrase "the retrospective." Retrospectives 
are a technique that is suitable at many scales and intervals.

The essential element of a retrospective (and one that's frequently left 
out by Scrum teams) is looking back over a period of time together. You 
see different things if you look over two weeks than if you look over 
six months. You see different things if you include just the development 
team than if you include the entire company.

Variety is the spice of life. If the presence of the PO inhibits other 
members of the team, then there's no reason why they can't have their 
own retro without the PO, whether or not they have one with the PO. I do 
have to wonder, though, how they're going to improve their relationship 
with the PO if they can't manage to talk about it in a retro.

  - George

On 2/23/17 6:13 PM, 'Jean Richardson' [email protected] 
[SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] wrote:
>
>
> I’m having the “should the Product Owner be at the retrospective”
> conversation again.  While, years ago, the Product Owner was optional in
> this meeting, a fair amount of learning has happened since then and a
> range of resources has come out advocating that the PO be present—not
> optional.  The current edition of the Scrum Guide doesn’t help much here
> by referring only to the “Scrum Team” in the section on the retro, but,
> then again, maybe that’s intentional, and the Ken and Jeff now believe,
> based on feedback and experiments, that the PO should be present at the
> retro as a matter of course.
>
>
>
> In a situation where the relationship is not good between the PO and the
> Development Team of the PO and the SM, I’m wondering about the quality
> of a retro where the PO is not optional, but a required attendee.  The
> guidance I typically give is that the purpose of the review is to
> inspect the increment and the purpose of the retro is for the team to
> inspect their work processes.  The most intimates changes are often
> within the team, and those conversations require privacy and
> confidentiality to those present unless those present determine
> otherwise.  Therefore, I still am reasoning that the PO is optional and
> included with the agreement of the Development Team.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?  References?
>
>
>
> --- Jean
>

-- 
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
   * George Dinwiddie *                      http://blog.gdinwiddie.com
   Software Development                    http://www.idiacomputing.com
   Consultant and Coach                    http://www.agilemaryland.org
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------

------------------------------------

To Post a message, send it to:   [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [email protected]