Inaccurate explanation in PSD open assessment?

Last post 06:30 pm June 25, 2015
by Patrick Roux
4 replies
Author
Messages
01:25 pm June 25, 2015

Hi all -

I've just received my PSM I cert, and am now reviewing for the PSD I exam. I took the open practice test and have a question on the explanation of a question. I did get the question right, but the explanation seemed off.

It states than ONLY the people that are building the product SHOULD be PRESENT at the scrum. But, I think that is misleading. Shouldn't the explanation be more that only those building the product should PARTICIPATE, but anyone can be PRESENT?

What do you all think?

====here is the question from the practice test=======

Who must be present at the Daily Scrum meeting?
Correct answer: C)
You chose: C)

C) The Development Team

Feedback:
The Daily Scrum is for the people transforming the Product Backlog items into an Increment. Only the people that are building the product should be present at the Daily Scrum.

02:54 pm June 25, 2015

How clearly can you distinguish between those who participate, and those who are merely present? How can you be sure that a third party, even if he or she is deathly silent, can have no effect on a Development Team during the Daily Scrum?

03:46 pm June 25, 2015

I'm just talking about the rules of scrum, outlined in the Scrum Guide. Anyone can come to a scrum as an observer, but only the Development Team can participate, per my understanding. Is that different than others' understanding?

05:10 pm June 25, 2015

The Scrum Guide says:

"The Scrum Master enforces the rule that only Development Team members participate in the Daily Scrum"

It could be construed from this that the Scrum Master has discretion over what may or may not constitute participation. However, the Guide does not make any explicit provision for non-members to attend as observers. Therefore any such attendance should be treated by exception. It may not be construed that there is a general right of easement for third parties wishing to observe.

06:30 pm June 25, 2015

Ah, yes, that makes sense. Ok, thanks!