Retrospective Documentation - Individual Member Names?
This is my first post - so glad this is here - thank you.
What are your thoughts on having an artifact that names individual team members in a retrospective?
Tony Anthony: Having trouble logging into the server
It would make sense that it doesn't hurt to document action items/impediments for a future sprint and that the name belongs in a personal backlog/blocker remover.
Should the long-lasting artifact be a team member naming document OR should it be anonymous/nameless notes?
It would make sense the individual would be private and note the impediment - the team document would be a hint of history and blockers.
I don't find an issue with publicity on group topics. Since the meeting is closed, shouldn't the individual comments?
I would only use the names for when it is beneficial to the team's growth; if it was something a bit more detrimental to an individual I would keep it anonymous.
Scenario: New team member didn't understand the story s/he worked on and did not do it correctly, which forced a re-work resulting in lost time and not completing everything for the Sprint.
Good to use: Team misunderstood the extent of a story and the work done did not meet the expectations. Will work closer together in the future and seek out help from PO for clarification when needed.
Bad to use: Josh Parker didn't understand the story he worked on and didn't get help from anyone else. It wasn't brought up to the team or the PO until it was too late so the story was not done and will have to be redone in the next sprint.
Can the action needed for remedy be picked up and implemented by any team member?
Follows the standard "praise in public" mode.
Retrospective is meant for the team as a whole and not to single out. Scrum is a team effort. It is meant to improve what needs to be improved. If the issue happens over again with the same person as the main reason, then talk with the concerned individual separately and know what is causing the same issue.