Make clear distinction between self-organization and sustainable pace
Contrary to XP and the Agile Manifesto Scrum doesn't mention sustainable pace. It does mention self-organization.
I do believe that self-organization does not cover the concern of Sustainable Pace. I do however firmly believe that Scrum done well requires a sustainable pace.
This is why I suggest adding this sentence:
“The Development Team should work in a sustainable pace which the team can maintain indefinitely”.
See link for more on this: https://medium.com/serious-scrum/does-scrum-protect-your-team-from-burning-out-4ec4376801e
Context drives the pace, and the culture creates the opportunities.
I guess inspect and adapt will have to be used to determine how much and how clear and how useful the work is.
Wan Kemper commented
Great idea. However, i think it is applicable to the whole scrum team, including Product Owner and Scrum master.
Willem-Jan Ageling commented
I like your suggestion Simon Mayer
Simon Mayer commented
I wonder whether it makes more sense to approach this from a transparency perspective.
For instance, working at an unsustainable pace is harmful to transparency about what the Development Team is able to achieve on an ongoing basis, and impedes empirical decision making.
Perhaps there is merit in a "Sustainable Pace" section under "Artifact Transparency", or it might be sufficient to add a line in the "Monitoring Progress Toward Goals" section.
I would go for something like "Transparency of progress is supported by the Development Team working at a pace it is able to sustain."