Florian, do you mean to say "managers"?
Mostly all Scrum implementations will fail, if *managers* do not support them.
So what is the role of *managers* in Scrum?
- *managers* are responsible to create the right (what's that again) environment so that people can self manage, to sponsor the Scrum team
The Scrum Guide addresses your concern every time it reference "the organization" and "stakeholders". In my opinion, the guide doesn't need anything further about managers.
I agree to Henrik's suggestion BUT I suggest the alternate language should be written very carefully -- some readers of the guide will be prone to read Henrik's interpretation as permission for the Product Owner to 'set' the Sprint Goal prior to the development team's input with respect to scope.
No. Just no.
I don't agree.
It's difficult for me to understand why I feel such disagreement with the suggestion. Perhaps because RACI is, by definition, a way of predefining (and often segregating) delivery/implementation from decision-making and therefore the model is a barrier to self-organization. (This is an incomplete argument, I know, but I would not support the inclusion of RACI in the Scrum Guide nor in a Scrum environment.
I can agree to this. I can't think of any negative effects of this change.
The Sprint Goal is a phrase which represents the intent of the Scrum Team for a Sprint. It is a goal to which the team and its stakeholders commit to achieving together.
Unlike the artifacts of Scrum, the Sprint Goal is not to be 'inspected' or 'adapted'. It is to be 'set' and then used as a guide for the inspection/adaption throughout the Sprint.
I'd agree that the Sprint Goal can be made transparent or known to all involved, but to formalize it as an artifact in the Scrum Guide would (for me) change the concept dramatically -- the Sprint Goal, if described as an artifact, would become procedural rather than aspirational.