This article is, if anything, even dumber than the article it’s responding to.
Constructively criticizing Scrum is really difficult because, to be frank, the biggest issues with it are structural and pretty inherent to the concept. “Your dev process is broken, try another” is seldom taken as good “constructive criticism”. Of course, Bowkett’s criticisms were pretty much all off-point or touching on meaningless minutia, but that makes any response to them other than “these criticisms are off-point and about meaningless minutia” equally pointless. Until we’ve got discussion of the actual deep problems with Scrum (like that it’s fundamentally built on the idea that story estimates are even a little bit reliable, a point that Bowkett actually mentioned and this article predictably failed to respond to), the level of discourse is going to stay at about that of an elementary school playground argument.
The original article was a bit of a rant, so it automatically has to be taken with a few grains of salt. Still, it did present some pretty on-point examples of possible failure modes of the scrum process. Scrum - just like any other process - can fail if it’s not managed adequately and these were some pretty amusing examples of it spinning out of control. Advocates of scrum would do well to note these examples and monitor their own scrums to make sure they’re not headed in the same direction.
For instance you might ask yourself “are people with influence subverting our process to give themselves additional power?” I’ve seen it happen myself although never to the extent described in the original article.
This follow-up article is disappointing in that it really fails to take on board or address these points. Instead it churlishly takes the original rant too seriously and reacts by presenting illogical false dichotomy arguments. For example: “If you tear down scrum and don’t replace it with anything…” - well that would be silly. Wouldn’t suggesting improvements to the process and defences against these failure modes make more sense?
Pages that don’t render without JS enabled should basically just die.
If you don’t have js you’re probably in a console browser, so the raw markdown is probably what you want.
Giles Bowkett wrote about his experience of broken Scrum, here is the expected counter-example of things working great with Scrum.
/me goes back to code