Oh, they sound so rigidly restrictive, claiming such full sovereignty over what to take in for the next sprint as well as what goes on the backlog and how it’s changed but, at the same time, without a commitment to both the planned functionality and the work needed to deliver it.

I also find it somewhat reminiscent of a frozen scope in good old ‘Waterfall’ projects, unexpected given the much shorter timeframes.

Maybe shortening it further will help, up to the doorstep of sorites paradox, or perhaps the right way to build software is nowhere to be found in such dichotomy.

Can’t all be just for the sake of enjoyment, I suppose.