I understand that Scrum is more than standups and you would know that if you'd actually read what I had written in this thread, let alone all the other Agile Imposition series of threads. It's also more than one book, isn't it? There are six that Code Sprinters calls "authoritative and successful in the marketplace", four of which feature the word "Scrum" in the titles.

There is specifically in Re: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part V): Meetings (to which you replied, starting this sub-thread):

However, the rest of the meeting information in Scrum seems to be just potentially useful tips for how to conduct the meetings in an orderly way. It almost feels like the authors of the method felt they were short some material after stating all the other rules to Scrum.

I never said anything in that node (Re: Nobody Expects the Agile Imposition (Part V): Meetings) about estimating the whole project, either. That's your wording about some strawman you brought into the conversation to knock down. I said you don't want some task (and I used the word "task", not "project") to be broken down incorrectly over a long period of time. I said that specifically in support of the frequent meetings. Believe it or not, estimates are sometimes wrong. You'd rather be wrong about short estimates frequently than long estimates infrequently. That's the justification for the frequency. The justification for the exact time, place, and office supplies necessary are exactly what I was questioning. You've supplied me with confirmation that someone using Scrum (you) has done it without the sticky notes. I maintain it could be down without the conference room. Now quit attacking points you're making for me.