<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Scrum Meetings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scrummethodology.com/scrum-meetings/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scrummethodology.com/scrum-meetings/</link>
	<description>Learn the Scrum Methodology</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:31:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://scrummethodology.com/scrum-meetings/#comment-3425</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:43:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scrummethodology.com/?p=24#comment-3425</guid>
		<description>I like the exclusion of the product owner from the retrospective meetings;
However, in some organizations where the PO is internal, this is hard to do. 
A 'workaround' that I saw working is having two 'retrospectives', one per scrum team (without the PO) and a latter one across multiple scrum teams, which includes product owners. This way, PO input is still received, but there is at least one session where views can be freely shared.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the exclusion of the product owner from the retrospective meetings;<br />
However, in some organizations where the PO is internal, this is hard to do.<br />
A &#8216;workaround&#8217; that I saw working is having two &#8216;retrospectives&#8217;, one per scrum team (without the PO) and a latter one across multiple scrum teams, which includes product owners. This way, PO input is still received, but there is at least one session where views can be freely shared.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://scrummethodology.com/scrum-meetings/#comment-2258</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scrummethodology.com/?p=24#comment-2258</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the correction, nfallon. You’re right. I omitted a word and it changed the meaning of my sentence. But to clarify, the Product Owner should NOT attend the retrospective, so that team members can speak candidly about what worked and what didn’t.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the correction, nfallon. You’re right. I omitted a word and it changed the meaning of my sentence. But to clarify, the Product Owner should NOT attend the retrospective, so that team members can speak candidly about what worked and what didn’t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nfallon</title>
		<link>http://scrummethodology.com/scrum-meetings/#comment-1819</link>
		<dc:creator>nfallon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 11:59:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scrummethodology.com/?p=24#comment-1819</guid>
		<description>The Product Owner should not attend the Retrospective meeting, this is incorrect
"Since the Product Owner sits this meeting, team members can speak frankly about the sprint’s successes and failures."
The sentance seems contradictive surely it should read
"Since the Product Owner does not sit in on this meeting, team members can speak frankly about the sprint’s successes and failures."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Product Owner should not attend the Retrospective meeting, this is incorrect<br />
&#8220;Since the Product Owner sits this meeting, team members can speak frankly about the sprint’s successes and failures.&#8221;<br />
The sentance seems contradictive surely it should read<br />
&#8220;Since the Product Owner does not sit in on this meeting, team members can speak frankly about the sprint’s successes and failures.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
