Some people say that this should never happen – once the Sprint is planned, it’s sacred, and that any changes to it need full team buy-in – any significant number of changes need a complete replan of the Sprint. I’ve not seen this so far in practice, but it sounds intriguing.
Some people being, in this case, the people who defined Scrum. If you allow a product owner to walk in and add stories to a sprint, and the team does not have the choice to "reset the sprint", then You Are Not Doing Scrum.
The Organizers are rarely empowered to change any of those thing, so they change the one thing they can, but shouldn’t: the build quality.
Again, if the Organizers are not empowered to change scope, deadline, etc, then They Are Not Doing Scrum.
So Agile Scrum doesn't deliver broken software. Fairy tale fantasists who believe they can ignore the central tenets of any process and get the results deliver broken software. Essentially: "People unable to implement a simple algorithm deliver broken software".
Some people being, in this case, the people who defined Scrum. If you allow a product owner to walk in and add stories to a sprint, and the team does not have the choice to "reset the sprint", then You Are Not Doing Scrum.
The Organizers are rarely empowered to change any of those thing, so they change the one thing they can, but shouldn’t: the build quality.
Again, if the Organizers are not empowered to change scope, deadline, etc, then They Are Not Doing Scrum.
So Agile Scrum doesn't deliver broken software. Fairy tale fantasists who believe they can ignore the central tenets of any process and get the results deliver broken software. Essentially: "People unable to implement a simple algorithm deliver broken software".