Agreed, this can be a point of confusion and that "guide" is probably not the best word. The way I learned it was linking back to the Manifesto language in maximizing the amount of work not done.
IMHO "Scrum is a framework" is clear; any other phrase (within, where, etc.) attached to that is additive and not definitive.
Does this undermine the values? Openness?
+1 for #NoManagement
The intent is to focus the discussion, It does not specify that they must be directly answered, but that certainly has been a hurdle in some teams. I agree with Dan Bergh Johnsson that a change to more closely mirror the descriptions of other events (inputs and outputs, purpose) might be helpful. The Development Team may benefit from SM suggestions for techniques, but DT self-organization will better flourish if the how is not prescribed.
What is the purpose of the Sprint Goal? "The Sprint Goal is an objective set for the Sprint." It provides Focus. It was a formal inclusion in 2013: "The Sprint Goal creates coherence in the Development Team’s work that would not be present in separate initiatives without a common goal. Note the formal inclusion of a Sprint Goal." Excluding it in a Sprint can have negative affects on productivity. How can the Sprint Goal be decoupled from the Sprint? It sounds like you are advocating a [InsertSomeOtherTimeframeHere] Goal.
I do like the intent of the proposed change since the Sprint Goal may need to be adjusted as the Development Team does its planning toward fulfilling Topic Two.
I believe this statement is based on the values, especially Focus. Others cannot be permitted to pull the DT or its members away from the Commitment of the Sprint Goal.
If DT members jump around to help other teams, how can one empirically forecast based on previous iterations?
The PO is always a risk as a bottleneck; if that individual cannot or is not performing then the Scrum Team and product (thus customer also) suffer. In the case of illness, somebody will have to fill that role regardless so nothing changes.
+1Million Fredrik Wendt
+1Million Adam Yuret
As with most other aspects of the framework, it means exactly what it says. Only DT members participate and the SM enforces that rule. It is up to each team to consider permitting observers. Concerns of negatively impacting the effectiveness of the event, especially with less mature DTs, must be considered. All those advocating the SM or PO participating are advocating violating the rules. Give each DT those fifteen minutes to plan the coordinated effort of the day. Excuses (not reasons) for having other individuals participate are indicators of issues that need to be resolved in some other manner.
It's always frustrating when people don't understand time-boxes despite its clear explanation, "All events are time-boxed events, such that every event has a maximum duration. Once a Sprint begins, its duration is fixed and cannot be shortened or lengthened. The remaining events may end whenever the purpose of the event is achieved, ensuring an appropriate amount of time is spent without allowing waste in the process."
The minimum time idea made me think for a moment, but how does that fit in reducing waste or maximizing the work not done?