Interesting move on the Scrum definitions to move from roles to accountabilities. The article does a good job explaining it but then falls back into talking about roles somehow. Regarding the tech leads indeed they can work in Scrum teams. Scrum don't talk about them simply because Scrum don't talk about technical skills.

The whole Scrum training and certification industry has a problem... and it's been going on for a long time.

Definitely this, as projects scale, keeping an eye on dependencies between teams is key to efficient allocation. This will happen by trying to eliminate said dependencies, reallocating between teams.

This is indeed two sides of the same coin. A good reminder that you need to pick the right approach depending on the context.

Or why I really hate the whole certification business. Especially for process and practice's related topics, this pushes the multiplication of brands and churches to sustain them. The right approach is almost always a blend of different influences and flavours.

Or why the term "user" in "user stories" need to be seen very liberally.

Short and to the point. It needs repeating from time to time for some reason.

Wording matters, and framing things differently can free teams from the Scrum limiting views. This is required to find a path towards improvements.

A good reminder that there is life outside of Scrum... I especially like the framing of Scrum as training wheels. When you learned biking you outgrew the training wheels, didn't you?

Interesting points about agile and lean approaches. In my view they tend to complete each other, that said the diagnostic of Scrum as practiced in most places today is not Agile is very true. So beware about what you're doing, is it folklore? is it dogmatic? or do you really apply values and principles?

Lots of truth in there. Indeed the proposed "practices" when they get in just kill the promises of things like Scrum.

Very good reminder that as an industry we're quick to blame external factors for our own failures. Of course we can be given a bad hand, but sometimes we'd have failed with a good hand as well.

This asks very valid questions. I'm a bit less optimistic than in the conclusion though... I suspect that if it truly falls, it will be replaced by another cargo cult.

Or why I'm actually glad I'm not certified even though I could be. This is a good way to stay balanced about all this. At least I'm trying to do my part trying to help people also on the technical areas which are mostly ignored by the "Scrum Industrial Complex" (as Ron Jeffries puts it). Clearly the scrum organizations are not interested in taking up that mantle so it falls onto us.

Interesting musing on how different types of companies manage their projects. I'm glad to see there's less cargo-cult Scrum than I expected. I also find funny that Scrum is perceived as "heavy weight". :-D

Clearly that's a big "if"... I don't think we'll ever see the Scrum Alliance really care about developers.

Excellent take from Ron Jeffries about the current state of the Scrum industry. So many certified Scrum Masters that it's not fun anymore and likely useless... if not outright harmful. That's in part why I always refused to be certified. This kind of schemes tend to lead to such abuses.