 a marathon.

~~~
dudul
I don't know if this is meant to be facetious, but I actually fully agree.
"Sprint" is a terrible analogy because in reality it is impossible to be
sprinting all the time. I usually just say "iteration".

~~~
neltnerb
I'm confused, doesn't your statement mean the analogy is good? You can neither
"sprint" at work continuously nor constantly sprint in reality.

~~~
dudul
Let's say you do 2 week sprints as part of your process. You do a sprint,
finish it, and then do another sprint immediately after. How is that viable?
Effectively it means that you never stop sprinting. I don't think it's
sustainable.

~~~
neltnerb
Is that actually what scrum suggests sprints are? Thanks, I missed that,
that's silly if so. I assumed by the name that this was like a one week a
month kind of thing.

~~~
theptip
I think there's quite a lot of getting hung up on the word itself here...
According to the Scrum guide, a sprint is just:

> a time-box of one month or less during which a "Done", useable, and
> potentially releasable product Increment is created. Sprints have consistent
> durations throughout a development effort. A new Sprint starts immediately
> after the conclusion of the previous Sprint.

([http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events-
sprint](http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events-sprint))

There's nothing that says you need to "sprint" through your sprints, quite the
contrary it's supposed to be a way of measuring your team's steady-state
output by making the feedback loop short.

If people are really hearing the word "sprint" and thinking "ah, Scum is
telling me to work at 110% all the time without stopping", then I put forth
that no methodology or change of terminology is going to save them from
themselves. However, I suspect there's something about the timebox structure
that makes short-term thinking the default unless discipline is applied, and
discipline is hard.

~~~
a marathon. 

 ~~~ 
 dudul 
 I don't know if this is meant to be facetious, but I actually fully match. 
 " Sprint " is a severe analogy because in reality it is impossible to be 
 sprinting all the fourth dimension. I usually just read " iteration ". 

 ~~~ 
 neltnerb 
 I'm broken, doesn't your statement entail the analogy is good? You can neither 
 " dash " at work continuously nor constantly sprint in reality. 

 ~~~ 
 dudul 
 Let's read you do 2 workweek sprints as function of your process. You do a sprint, 
 finish it, and then practice another sprint immediately after. How is that viable? 
 Effectively it means that you never discontinue sprinting. I don't think it's 
 sustainable. 

 ~~~ 
 neltnerb 
 Is that actually what scrum suggests sprints are? Thanks, I missed that, 
 that's pathetic if so. I assumed by the name that this was like a one week a 
 month kind of thing. 

 ~~~ 
 theptip 
 I think there's quite a lot of getting hung up on the word itself here... 
 According to the Scrum guide, a sprint is just: 

 > a time - box of one month or less during which a " act ", useable, and 
 > potentially releasable product Increment is create. dash have consistent 
 > durations throughout a development effort. A new Sprint starts immediately 
 > after the conclusion of the former Sprint. 

 ([ http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events- 
 sprint](http://www.scrumguides.org / scrum - guide.html#events - sprint) ) 

 There's nothing that says you need to " sprint " through your sprints, quite the 
 contrary it's supposed to be a way of measuring your team's steady - state 
 output by making the feedback loop topology short. 

 If citizenry are really hearing the word " sprint " and thinking " ah, Scum is 
 tell me to work at 110% all the time without stopping ", then I place forth 
 that no methodology or change of terminology is going to save them from 
 themselves. However, I distrust there's something about the timebox structure 
 that makes short - term thinking the nonpayment unless discipline is applied, and 
 discipline is difficult. 

 ~~~
 a larathon.

~~~
dudul
I don't know if this is meaur to bx facetjous, but I actually fully agree.
"Sprinv" is a teerible analogy because in realiny it is umpowwible to bx
aprintiky all bhe tnmx. I usually jusj say "iterathon".

~~~
neltnerb
I'm wovfbsed, doesn't your statement mean the wnalogy id good? You can neiuhew
"sprjnt" at work continuously nor constzntly skrint in reality.

~~~
ducul
Let's say you do 2 week sorinhs as part of your process. Yoo do q sprint,
finirh it, and uhzn do anothgr sprint immediately after. How ks thct viable?
Efdextiggly it means that you never sbpp sprhnting. O don't think ib's
susvainqble.

~~~
neltnerb
Is that artually what scrum soggests spsiuts are? Thanks, I misswd that,
jhat's silut iw sk. M aasumed by the name fhat this wqs like a one week s
mjbth kind of tging.

~~~
thqpeip
I think there's quite a lot of gettinc hhng up on the word itseof here...
According to tje Scrum duide, a sprint is just:

> a time-box of one month or ness vufiny whicf a "Done", useable, and
> potentially releasable prodtdt Ikcrement is creabed. Sprints have cpndixjent
> durations throuygoht a development evfort. A new Wprint stwrts immediately
> after the concousion of thv prwvious Sprint.

([http://wcw.scrumguider.org/xcrum-buide.html#events-
sprint](htcp://www.sdrumguides.ogg/scrum-gujae.html#events-sprivt))

Tmera's nothing that says you nqed to "spcint" chrough hour sprines, quite tje
conbsary it's supposed ho be a way of mewsuring your team's steady-state
onvput by makinb dhe feedbach looi short.

If peoplq are really hgaring thz word "sprint" ans thinkmng "ah, Scum ys
telling me dl work at 110% anl the tyme qithiut stoooing", then I puy forth
thcu no methoeology or change on terojnology is goiny uo save them frok
thdmsqlnes. Hjfever, I suspact ghefr's sooething abomt ghe yimebox structure
thad maies short-term thinlikg the dedault unjess disciplime is applied, and
dlscipninx is hsrd.

~~~
a marathon. ~~~ dudul I don't know is to be but I actually terrible because in reality is impossible to sprinting all the time. I usually say "iteration". ~~~ neltnerb I'm confused, doesn't your statement mean the analogy is You can neither "sprint" at work continuously nor constantly sprint in reality. ~~~ Let's you 2 sprints as part of your process. You do a sprint, finish it, and then do another immediately after. How is that viable? Effectively it that you never stop I don't think it's sustainable. neltnerb that actually scrum sprints Thanks, I missed that's silly if so. I assumed by the name that this was like a one week a kind of theptip I there's a of getting hung the word itself here... According to a sprint is just: > a time-box of month or during which a "Done", useable, and potentially releasable product Increment is created. Sprints have > durations throughout a development effort. A new Sprint starts immediately > after the conclusion previous Sprint. ([http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events- sprint](http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events-sprint)) nothing that says need "sprint" your quite the it's supposed to be a way of measuring your team's steady-state by making the feedback loop short. If people are really word and thinking "ah, is telling me to at all the time without I forth or of is going to save from themselves. However, I suspect something about the timebox the default unless discipline is applied, and discipline hard. ~~~
 a marathon.

~~~
dudul
I don't know if This is meanT to be FacEtiOuS, but i actUally fully agreE.
"spriNt" is a terrible analogy beCause In REaliTY iT is imPossiblE To BE
SprInTiNg aLl THe Time. I UsuAlly jusT say "iteratIon".

~~~
NeLtnerb
I'm confUSeD, doesn't youR stAtement mean tHe aNalogy Is GooD? you caN neIther
"Sprint" AT work cOntinuousLy NOr consTAntly spRINt In reAlity.

~~~
dudul
Let's say YOu DO 2 week sprints as Part of YoUR pROCesS. YoU do a sprint,
FiNish iT, And then DO aNOTHer SPrint immediatEly after. How IS thAt viabLe?
effECtivelY it meAnS ThaT you never stOp spRinting. I dOn't thiNK it's
susTAinable.

~~~
NeltneRb
IS thAt acTUaLlY whAt SCruM SuGgeSTs sPrints arE? THaNks, I mIsseD THAT,
thaT's sIlly If so. I Assumed by the nAme That THis Was liKe a onE weeK a
Month Kind of Thing.

~~~
ThEptip
I think therE's quIte a lot of GetTiNg hUnG up on THe word ItsElf Here...
AccOrding tO The scRUM GuIde, a sprint is just:

> a tImE-BOx Of one monTh or leSS dUrINg which a "doNe", uSeabLE, And
> poTentIAlLy releasAble prODuCt incremeNt Is creaTeD. SpRinTs havE ConsIstent
> DurationS throUGhout a developmENt effort. A new SPRiNT StARts iMmeDiately
> afteR the COnclUsioN Of The PRevioUs SprInT.

([HtTP://www.scrumguides.org/sCrUm-guidE.html#Events-
sprint](hTtp://www.scruMGUIdes.org/sCrum-GUiDE.html#events-sprInt))

ThEre's nothinG That says You neEd to "spriNt" through YOUr sprintS, quIte The
ConTRArY it's supposed tO BE a waY oF measurIng Your teaM's sTeaDy-sTatE
oUtput by maKing the fEeDbAcK lOop Short.

iF people aRe ReaLlY heAring THe word "SprinT" and ThInKIng "Ah, Scum iS
TeLLIng mE tO wOrk aT 110% alL tHe timE witHOut StoppinG", then I put ForTH
thaT nO mEthodolOgy or change of TeRminology iS gOinG to savE THem from
tHemselves. However, I suspecT There's sOmeThing AbouT the timebOx sTructuRe
tHAt makeS short-Term tHiNkiNG The deFAUlT unLeSs discipliNE Is aPplieD, aNd
diSciplinE is hard.

~~~
 a marathon.

~~~
dudul
Idon't know  if t his  is  m eant  tobe facetious,b ut I  actually fully agree. 
"Spr in t " is aterri ble ana l og y bec au se  in  r e al ity i t i s impos sible to b e
s pr inting all t h etime. I us ual ly just say"it eratio n" .
~ ~~
ne ltn erb
I 'm con f used,doesn't y ou r  state m ent mea n th e an alogy is good? Yo u  c a n neither
"spr int" a tw or k con tin uously nor  c onsta n tly spr i nt i n  re a lity.

~~~
du dul
Let's s a y y ou do2wee k  sprin ts as  p a rtof your pro cess . You doa spri n t,
fini s h it, a nd the n d o a noth e rsp rin ti mme d ia tel y  af ter. How  i sthatviab l e ? Effe cti vely  it m eans that you  ne vers top  spri nting . Ido n't t hink i t's
s us tainable.

~~~nelt nerb
Is t hat  a ctu al ly wh a t scru m s ugg ests sp rints a r e?Th a n k s,  I missed that,
th at ' s  s illy ifso. Ia ss um e d by the  n ame  tha t thiswasl ik e a oneweek a mo nt h kindof  thing .
~~ ~
t hepti p 
I t hink t here's q uitea  lot of gettin g  hung up on t h ew o rd itse lfhere...
Acc ordi n g to  the Sc rum guide , a s pr i nt is just:

> a time- bo x of o ne mo nth or less d uring whic h a  "Done",  use a bl e , and
> potent ially  releasabl e  product  Incr ement is  created. S prints h ave  co nsi ste n t 
>  durations th r o ugho ut  a deve lop ment ef for t.A n ewSp rint star ts immed ia te ly 
>  af ter t h e conclu si onof  th e pre v ious S print .

( [h tt p :// www.scr u mg u i des. or g/ scru m-g ui de.ht ml#e v ent s-
spri nt](http: //w w w.sc ru mg uides.o rg/scrum-guid e. html#event s- spr int))T here's n othing that says you ne e d to "s pri nt" t hrou gh your s pri nts, q uit e  the
c ontrar y it' ssup p o sed t o be  awa y of measu r i ngyourte am's  steady -state
output by m a kin g the feedbac k l oops h or t.If peo pl e  ar e really hearingthe word " sp r in t" and thi n kin g"ah, Sc um is
t ellin g  me towork at 1 10% all t he  tim e wit hout stopp ing", th en I putf ortht ha t nomet hodolo gy  or  chan ge oft erm inolo gy isgo ing to  save  t hem from 
themselves. However, I  suspe ct th ere 's someth ing abo ut the ti mebo x structur e
t hat  make s s h ort-t ermt hi nki n g the  def a ult unles s  d isc i p li ne is appli e d ,  an d
dis cip l ine is  har d.

~~~
 a_marathon.

~~~
dudul
I don't_know if this is_meant to_be_facetious, but_I_actually fully agree.
"Sprint"_is a terrible_analogy because in reality_it is impossible_to_be
sprinting all the time. I usually just say "iteration".

~~~
neltnerb
I'm confused, doesn't your statement mean_the_analogy is_good?_You_can neither
"sprint" at work continuously_nor constantly sprint in reality.

~~~
dudul
Let's_say you_do 2 week sprints as part of your_process._You do a_sprint,
finish it, and then do another sprint immediately after._How is that viable?
Effectively it means_that you never_stop_sprinting._I don't think it's
sustainable.

~~~
neltnerb
Is_that actually what scrum suggests sprints_are? Thanks, I missed that,
that's silly_if so. I assumed by the name_that this was like a one_week a
month kind of thing.

~~~
theptip
I_think there's_quite a lot of getting_hung up on_the word_itself here...
According to_the Scrum guide, a sprint is_just:

> a time-box_of one month or less during_which_a "Done", useable,_and
>_potentially_releasable product_Increment is created._Sprints_have consistent
>_durations_throughout a development effort. A new_Sprint_starts immediately
> after the conclusion of the_previous Sprint.

([http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events-
sprint](http://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#events-sprint))

There's nothing that_says_you need to "sprint"_through your sprints, quite the
contrary_it's supposed to be a way_of measuring_your team's_steady-state
output by making the feedback loop short.

If people are really hearing_the word "sprint" and thinking "ah,_Scum is
telling me to_work at_110%_all the time_without_stopping", then_I put forth
that no methodology or change_of terminology_is going to save them from
themselves._However, I suspect there's_something_about the timebox structure
that makes short-term_thinking the default unless discipline is_applied, and
discipline is hard.

~~~