219 votesBrett Maytom commented
I don't like the word responsible as it results in Scrum Masters actually having no authority on the process. I think it should be harder and should read 'accountable'
The three roles (not job titles) provide a clear delegation of accountability where the Product Owner defines product and value, the Development the engineering practices to deliver the product and value and the Scrum Master the process.
These three roles are perfectly in harmony and balance each other from an accountability point of view. One must never loose sight that they are not done in isolation and a high level of collaboration and negotiation is needed. Each role is a stakeholder in other roles, but accountability must rest with the role.
Some events it says the SM is responsible. The SM could also delegate facilitation to a team member should the team member want to grow skills in that area. Therefore the responsibility, is on the team member but accountability always remains with the SM.
147 votesBrett Maytom commented
Although the three questions are there to guide the conversation towards re planning towards the sprint goal, it does introduce a bad behavior in teams. Novice Scrum Masters and team members start rattling the questions off as a "Status Report". They actually do not plan for the next 24 hours and maximize their focus on remaining work. The conversation they have is totally wrong.
Instead I would reword the guide to draw attention to the conversation is about how to get remaining work done. To maximize effort for the day and to get most value out of the day with the constraints the team has on the day.
As with the guide, the events are high level; however the Scrum Guide is quite prescriptive of the Daily Scrum. To me this is odd as it should be a 'guide'.Brett Maytom supported this idea ·