Talk:Scrum pattern

PMI involvement
I do think a reference is needed about the PMI involment ; it was introduced first as PM' associations, then PM' institutes and then PMI.

VThavo: Hi, I am the original author of this article. Could you further add details and references about PMI / PM' associations ? Scrum Patterns was mainly defined thanks to large projects with high level of documentation and tractability (such as CMMI 4 or 5), relative to cost, % of failure, team size, ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vthavo (talk • contribs) 20:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem with this article here is that...
It does not tell exactly whether scrum is a pattern, an antipattern, or, suddenly, both. 1. I do not see why it is a pattern. It is a technique, technology, etc, but not a pattern, is it? 2. I do not see why it is an antipattern. I am not a fan of scrum, but it's being used in many organizations, and it definitely contributes to improving the development process.

Vlad Patryshev (talk) 23:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wander, what scrum is, you should probably take a look at Scrum article. This article is about Scrum patterns, which are kind of building blocks of Scrum methodology 108.171.129.189 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to delete
Hi, all,

I represent the group that has been writing, collecting, and assembling Scrum patterns for the past five years. That group includes the inventor of Scrum, Jeff Sutherland, and the foremost Scrum leaders in the industry today. I've consulted with the authors of the material being discussed on this page, and many of them have visited the page. Our consensus is that this page does not represent the work we have been doing, does not exhibit a proper understanding of the term "pattern," includes much peripheral and impertinent information, and a host of very basic misunderstandings. It is largely inaccurate, out-of-date, and is not up to our quality standards. It infers sources for our work and connections for our work that do not exist. No one in the group was consulted about the claims or information presented in the article, and no one in the group was aware of this page's existence until I pointed it out to them. We can only guess that the work is a speculative attempt to represent the work or to somehow associate the work with a constituency that is foreign to us.

No one in the group feels that any reasonable´amount of incremental editing can bring the article to where it needs to be from where it is now. It is much more work to correct it than to start over. I'd like to suggest that the page be deleted, and would ask those who have been principles in working on this delete it.

If the page isn't deleted within a reasonable period of time I'll pursue the next level of escalation in setting the content right.

(Jcoplien (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC))
 * No one should expect to be consulted with regard to Wikipedia articles about the topic they work on, their own work, or even their own biography, but I agree that this page is a complete mess. I'm going to go through it and merge anything worth saving into Scrum (software development). -- Beland (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)