Re: PO at retro

What does the team want? I've had teams that want the PO there, teams that
don't, and teams that invite them from time to time. I even had one team
that had two retrospectives a month, and invited the PO to one of them --
and had the other by themselves. The question ultimately has to be: who
needs to be there to have valuable conversations that result in robust
action items?


Barbara


On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:36 PM, srinivas chillara [email protected]
[SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] <[email protected]> wrote:


>
> [Attachment(s) <#m_-460488059543932432_TopText> from srinivas chillara
> included below]
>
> I tend to agree with you Ms Richardson.
> And Mr Dinwiddie has a very valid point. How about having an agreement
> that the team can invite the PO for retro (if it wants) and SM keeps an eye
> on the side-effects of such decisions? Or PO stays for sometime (20 min)
> and then leaves--- this worked for teams I coached.
>
> cheers
> Srinivas
> http://ceezone.wordress.com
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* "'Jean Richardson' [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT]" <
> [email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Friday, 24 February 2017 4:43 AM
> *Subject:* [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] PO at retro
>
>
> 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
>
>
> *[image: gate.site.jpg]*
>
> *Jean Richardson*
> Azure Gate Consulting
> *~ **Repatterning the Human Experience of Work*
>
> *AzureGate.net*
> (503) 788-8998
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>