[djeikyb]

> Even if engineers believe do not believe its going too fast (superficial review, lack of manual testing)

If the engineers are speaking up and are actively ignored, then the business's feedback loop is broken. The things in the agile manifesto need buy in beyond the people writing code.

> scrum master end up make it happen as his job is to make sure "sprint commitments" are met

The whole idea of using the word "agile" is to allow commitments to be re-evaluated. Respond to change, don't rigidly follow a plan.

If someone is mandating a rigidly adhered to practice of scrum, and doesn't allow teams to adapt that process to the individuals and interactions at hand, it's not agile.

[alkonaut]

I don't think Scrum should be judged on how well it can perform but how well it actually performs. If 9 organizations out of 10 can't succeed in applying it, that's certainly a bad evaluation of Scrum even if technically Scrum was never properly applied in those organizations.