Talk:Scrum of scrums

Confusing notes
The last notes are very confusing: they mix action items with mere reporting; past, current and future events. It was clearer with current/upcoming/blockers sections and the like. I suppose the mingle cards are clearer, but currently it's impossible to tell what actually happened at the meeting (in terms of decisions etc.). --Nemo 18:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes length
Recently, the meeting notes got very long. There are are several fixed blurbs like this: 1, Objective 4]]: Continue improving the ways that users can download articles of interest for later consumption client apps by coalescing and moving more logic to the server]]
 * Quarterly goal dependency update:
 * [[metawiki:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2017-2018/Draft/Programs/Product#Program_2:_Better_Encyclopedia|Outcome
 * Reading Web depends on SRE, RelEng, Reading Infra
 * [[Wikimedia Audiences/2017-18 Q4 Goals#Readers|Increase code sharing of
 * Reading Infra depends on Parsing, Services

This makes it very difficult to spot the actual information contained in the text. The repeated information should be removed (especially if there's nothing added under those bullets), or separated, or made less invasive (e.g. by inserting it on-wiki via a template and avoiding it in the email update). Thanks, Nemo 22:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Anyone actually using Scrum?
Saw this:

"Many Wikimedia Engineering teams are using the scrum agile method."

I'm not sure this is really true anymore. I know a lot of teams borrow Scrum and Agile practices, often opting for officially calling their approach "Kanban" (or "Scrumban" when they really want to be specific). Obviously, Scrum of Scrums is just an excuse to get teams together and surface risks around dependencies (and when it was started, a lot of teams did use Scrum). I just thought this might be confusing to a newcomer. I might also just be plain wrong. :)
 * Edited :) Greg (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)