My work uses a Scrum-like process to manage projects. I say Scrum-like, because we call it Scrum, but our project managers exclude aspects of Scrum that are inconvenient (most notably customer interaction).
One of the stories in our current sprint was to correct a defect. After spending almost an entire day working on the issue, I determined the issue was the result of a permissions issue, so I didn't end up modifying any code.
Our Scrum master / project manager decided that no code change equals zero points. I know that Scrum points are supposed to measure size / complexity and not time, but our Scrum master invests a lot of time in preparing graphs and statistical information from past sprints (average velocity, average points completed, etc.)
I've always been of the opinion that for statistics to be meaningful in any way, the data must be as accurate as possible. All of our data is fuzzy to begin with, because, from time to time, we're encouraged by the Scrum master to "adjust" our size / complexity estimates, both increasing and decreasing them.
I'd like to hear some other developers / Scrum team members thoughts on the merits of statistics based on past sprints, and also whether they think it's appropriate to "adjust" size / complexity estimates in the middle of a sprint, or the remove all points from a story all together for situations similar to what I've just described.
