[jevgeni]

It's a decent article.

Defining "scrum" in a debate-club fashion here is meaningless and is actually a valid strategy to discredit any criticism of it.

1. Scrum being a "philosophy" itself isn't clearly defined.

2. Different orgs practice Scrum differently, hence the more specifically you define Scrum, the less of the practice falls under that definition.

3. Best definition in this context is "set of practices most orgs call Scrum", which might as well be omitted.

And all of that has no bearing on the fact, that if team leadership busts out Scrum boards and Jira tickets more often than discussing problems, teaching/promoting knowledge and figuring out the best product design, then it's probably a mediocre shitshow.