Push deadlines. Achieve milestones. Progress timelines. Pick one, but whatever the terminology, no matter what nonsense systems engineering metaphors you use, none of these is a scrum masters responsibility.
By your definitions in a "weak-matrix" organisation, such as a software development team, a scrum master may eat the project managers lunch, though in a "balanced matrix" organisation the project manager is essentially redundant to all intents and purposes for software development as your department head, VP of engineering, whatever may essentially drive a scrum team directly and the team itself assume the remaining responsibilities.
If the project manager plays her cards right then she might still have some purpose as a PA or some kind of high-level admin.
Yes, kind of.. but you take ownership of it yourself.
Ideally though you've never committed to doing more than you're comfortable with - yes the daily standup does institute some "peer pressure" to keep making progress, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
But again, this is not the scrum master's responsibility. The scrum master may intervene to keep the meeting moving along but he should otherwise be passive regarding content.
I know I know that in reality this might in fact be warped and the scrum master may also wear a business croney cap, but if hats the case it's subverting one of the central principles of scrum. It's something like scrum you're practising, with some similar features, but it's not quite.
Right, but in Scrum much of this belongs to the product owner, who may or may not be a product manager of the variety you describe. Scrum does not prevent you from having such "CAPM" defined roles, however they must fit within the Scrum framework. Otherwise you're not practising scrum...
Hmmmm - Project Manager is a very broad and loaded term. Many professional project managers wouldn't consider themselves Scrum masters and vice versa. In particular, the role of a project manager is specifically to push timelines, but in Scrum the role of the Scrum master is to guide the process - timelines are owned by the product owner. The distinction is subtle but important enough that it matters.
Cheap warm bodies off-shore are a reality of business these days. You just cant produce the volume of content that constitutes a modern product without it. This is one of the modern realities that legacy scrum just can't address.
No. Agile cannot design your system for you. It dictates the granularity of deliverables and the order in which they are delivered, but the structure of these must still be determined by good engineering leadership and/or architecture. These roles are not obviated by Scrum, they can co-exist quite nicely and these viewpoints should when presented inform the deliberations of the team's story refinement session. If you don't have this, Scrum isn't going to give it to you, and if you implement Scrum as a way to deal with this kind of inadequacy you will still have problems, but at the very least you won't have to wait 6 months to discover it.
I think the biggest weakness of Scrum is it's dependency on having a Scrum master. It just doesn't work unless you have somebody guiding the organisation full time, or a development team who have all been trained together. I've never seen the former, and though I have seen the latter it was at extraordinary expense in terms of training costs and lost productivity in the transition.
The core principles are fine:
1) Frequent communication means nobody drifts too far out of scope
2) Breaking a large problem into small problems is something you should have learned before you even started university
3) Gives nervous business stakeholders an insight into the development process
But it doesn't work in most settings for these reasons:
A) The broader business doesn't engage (becomes sprints within waterfall)
B) The engineering organisation doesn't engage (usually because they don't feel they own it)
C) It's too complicated - it's the core principles that matter, not rote adherence or form filling
Too many moving parts; too many new concepts; too many new ways of doing things; for too many people; who aren't necessarily interested and/or sufficiently trained and informed.
You CAN make Scrum work - if and only if - everybody gets on board and you take a large hit up front while everybody adjusts to the transition.
For all it's flaws, Git is still the best version control system in common usage. Yes it is horrible, but that just says more about the rest of them...
Sorry my point was that the scheme you describe has been around ages (nothing new to see here) but that it's too cumbersome to work in practice. Otherwise we'd see it used more often right?
Glad you agree the entire web should be encrypted. It used to be an issue with CPU usage & then power constraints when mobile came on the scene but we should expect to see it more and more now esp post snowden
I first encountered the approach you describe (URL rewriting for session management) when working with BEA WebLogic about 10 years ago, but I'd say it predates that. It would kick in by default when cookies weren't enabled. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13...
I think it worked okay, besides the ugly URLs and stuff. The issue described elsewhere around copying/pasting/sharing links or some bad person hijacking your session could be resolved by making the magic numbers "one-time only" but then you would lose your bookmarkability. Basically you will still need to log in. You'll also have to resign yourself to the fact that the user needs to log in again every time they use the back button, or otherwise enter your site some other way than through using the links that you provide. You'll probably have to rewrite all your static content too.
There's still a possibility of a hacker snooping an unencrypted HTTP session however and hijacking your session by sending the next URL before you do. To be honest you good attack a user on cookies in the same way... another scenario worth considering could be an attacker with a brief amount of access to your computer copying and pasting one of your links into IM window.
In the scenario you describe, a good implementation would resolve all invalid rewrite links to their non-personalised variant.
Since we are setting parameters, I think it would also be wise to specify that ducks eligible for this metaphor must be able to fly, since only a flying duck a can migrate, and therefore be considered a traveller!
Nope, 'subconcious' is a Freudian concept that refers to deeper currents of conciousness, well beyond what can be known or observable and such phenomena as dreams are ascribed to this. Unconcious may alternatively be described as 'inattentive' i.e. something you do without being conciously aware you are doing it (e.g. something that is well practiced such as signing your name, may be largely 'unconcious' whereas sketching a fruit-bowl might draw far more concious resources if you are not proficient in that area)
This simply seems like an extension of the cocktail party effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail_party_effect) or Priming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)) it's not entirely new, it does show that inattentive processing can be a little more sophisticated than previously thought, but it is not a game-changer.
I was stuck with this same conundrum 6 months ago: Need a computer, don't want vista, need windows for compatibility. I was going around all the shops looking for a small nifty laptop and as I went down the spec-list for each prospect my face would always fall where it said windows vista.
I believe the recent service-pack for vista fixed a lot of the issues, but at the time I knew from personal experience and that of my friends, that vista would take any nice hardware and reduce it by about 50% of what I'd get with XP. My brother, who's in Media and uses macs all the time said: 'get a mac, you can stick XP on it and you'll be set'
I went and got a beefy macbook, setup parallels with an old copy of XP I've had lying around and hey presto! I've even discovered that the compatibility problems weren't as pronounced as I thought and I've rarely had to boot into XP at all!
I reckon you might pay a premium of about 10-15% over standard high-end PC hardware, but for a completely integrated solution, with well-tested hardware, reliablility and no *major* compatibility issues, that's money well spent in my (mac) book!
(my only regret at this stage is that I didn't go the whole hog on a macbook pro. The standard macbook, tho beautifully designed, is a little 'girly' looking, and I cant help but feel a little self-conscious in meetings and on public transport).
Slashdot Mirror
Push deadlines. Achieve milestones. Progress timelines. Pick one, but whatever the terminology, no matter what nonsense systems engineering metaphors you use, none of these is a scrum masters responsibility.
By your definitions in a "weak-matrix" organisation, such as a software development team, a scrum master may eat the project managers lunch, though in a "balanced matrix" organisation the project manager is essentially redundant to all intents and purposes for software development as your department head, VP of engineering, whatever may essentially drive a scrum team directly and the team itself assume the remaining responsibilities.
If the project manager plays her cards right then she might still have some purpose as a PA or some kind of high-level admin.
Yes, kind of .. but you take ownership of it yourself.
Ideally though you've never committed to doing more than you're comfortable with - yes the daily standup does institute some "peer pressure" to keep making progress, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.
But again, this is not the scrum master's responsibility. The scrum master may intervene to keep the meeting moving along but he should otherwise be passive regarding content.
I know I know that in reality this might in fact be warped and the scrum master may also wear a business croney cap, but if hats the case it's subverting one of the central principles of scrum. It's something like scrum you're practising, with some similar features, but it's not quite.
But yeah, going by your definition it certainly is loaded term!
Right, but in Scrum much of this belongs to the product owner, who may or may not be a product manager of the variety you describe. Scrum does not prevent you from having such "CAPM" defined roles, however they must fit within the Scrum framework. Otherwise you're not practising scrum ...
Hmmmm - Project Manager is a very broad and loaded term. Many professional project managers wouldn't consider themselves Scrum masters and vice versa. In particular, the role of a project manager is specifically to push timelines, but in Scrum the role of the Scrum master is to guide the process - timelines are owned by the product owner. The distinction is subtle but important enough that it matters.
Cheap warm bodies off-shore are a reality of business these days. You just cant produce the volume of content that constitutes a modern product without it. This is one of the modern realities that legacy scrum just can't address.
No. Agile cannot design your system for you. It dictates the granularity of deliverables and the order in which they are delivered, but the structure of these must still be determined by good engineering leadership and/or architecture. These roles are not obviated by Scrum, they can co-exist quite nicely and these viewpoints should when presented inform the deliberations of the team's story refinement session. If you don't have this, Scrum isn't going to give it to you, and if you implement Scrum as a way to deal with this kind of inadequacy you will still have problems, but at the very least you won't have to wait 6 months to discover it.
I think the biggest weakness of Scrum is it's dependency on having a Scrum master. It just doesn't work unless you have somebody guiding the organisation full time, or a development team who have all been trained together. I've never seen the former, and though I have seen the latter it was at extraordinary expense in terms of training costs and lost productivity in the transition.
The core principles are fine:
1) Frequent communication means nobody drifts too far out of scope
2) Breaking a large problem into small problems is something you should have learned before you even started university
3) Gives nervous business stakeholders an insight into the development process
But it doesn't work in most settings for these reasons:
A) The broader business doesn't engage (becomes sprints within waterfall)
B) The engineering organisation doesn't engage (usually because they don't feel they own it)
C) It's too complicated - it's the core principles that matter, not rote adherence or form filling
Too many moving parts; too many new concepts; too many new ways of doing things; for too many people; who aren't necessarily interested and/or sufficiently trained and informed.
You CAN make Scrum work - if and only if - everybody gets on board and you take a large hit up front while everybody adjusts to the transition.
Most businesses can't and won't do this.
Alan Cox (-:
Please give us a hint!
For all it's flaws, Git is still the best version control system in common usage. Yes it is horrible, but that just says more about the rest of them ...
Sorry my point was that the scheme you describe has been around ages (nothing new to see here) but that it's too cumbersome to work in practice. Otherwise we'd see it used more often right?
Glad you agree the entire web should be encrypted. It used to be an issue with CPU usage & then power constraints when mobile came on the scene but we should expect to see it more and more now esp post snowden
I first encountered the approach you describe (URL rewriting for session management) when working with BEA WebLogic about 10 years ago, but I'd say it predates that. It would kick in by default when cookies weren't enabled. https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E13...
I think it worked okay, besides the ugly URLs and stuff. The issue described elsewhere around copying/pasting/sharing links or some bad person hijacking your session could be resolved by making the magic numbers "one-time only" but then you would lose your bookmarkability. Basically you will still need to log in. You'll also have to resign yourself to the fact that the user needs to log in again every time they use the back button, or otherwise enter your site some other way than through using the links that you provide. You'll probably have to rewrite all your static content too.
There's still a possibility of a hacker snooping an unencrypted HTTP session however and hijacking your session by sending the next URL before you do. To be honest you good attack a user on cookies in the same way ... another scenario worth considering could be an attacker with a brief amount of access to your computer copying and pasting one of your links into IM window.
In the scenario you describe, a good implementation would resolve all invalid rewrite links to their non-personalised variant.
* or duck-like entity
Since we are setting parameters, I think it would also be wise to specify that ducks eligible for this metaphor must be able to fly, since only a flying duck a can migrate, and therefore be considered a traveller!
not if it's been cooked it isn't :)
Until that is, you go to cook the duck
worst analogy ever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_theory_of_mind#Criticism
also, it's more like an autonomous hardware subsystem, firing an interrupt
Nope, 'subconcious' is a Freudian concept that refers to deeper currents of conciousness, well beyond what can be known or observable and such phenomena as dreams are ascribed to this. Unconcious may alternatively be described as 'inattentive' i.e. something you do without being conciously aware you are doing it (e.g. something that is well practiced such as signing your name, may be largely 'unconcious' whereas sketching a fruit-bowl might draw far more concious resources if you are not proficient in that area)
This simply seems like an extension of the cocktail party effect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocktail_party_effect) or Priming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)) it's not entirely new, it does show that inattentive processing can be a little more sophisticated than previously thought, but it is not a game-changer.
In a society of such unquestionably uncorrupted morals and principals why is a non-repudiable currency even necessary?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3vFsOeGVkd4/ShVBnWKXkGI/AAAAAAAAAHo/hF60UTm0Yo8/s1600/08212094-Table-Book2.jpg
I was stuck with this same conundrum 6 months ago: Need a computer, don't want vista, need windows for compatibility. I was going around all the shops looking for a small nifty laptop and as I went down the spec-list for each prospect my face would always fall where it said windows vista.
I believe the recent service-pack for vista fixed a lot of the issues, but at the time I knew from personal experience and that of my friends, that vista would take any nice hardware and reduce it by about 50% of what I'd get with XP. My brother, who's in Media and uses macs all the time said: 'get a mac, you can stick XP on it and you'll be set'
I went and got a beefy macbook, setup parallels with an old copy of XP I've had lying around and hey presto! I've even discovered that the compatibility problems weren't as pronounced as I thought and I've rarely had to boot into XP at all!
I reckon you might pay a premium of about 10-15% over standard high-end PC hardware, but for a completely integrated solution, with well-tested hardware, reliablility and no *major* compatibility issues, that's money well spent in my (mac) book!
(my only regret at this stage is that I didn't go the whole hog on a macbook pro. The standard macbook, tho beautifully designed, is a little 'girly' looking, and I cant help but feel a little self-conscious in meetings and on public transport).
... the amount of coffee you guys drink???
QED