The arguments delivered are along the lines of "Sprint 0 is only necessary when you consider Scrum a process", "It involves people that don't need to be involved", "It overloads the terms", "Waste", "BUFD", etc.
So, let me create a bit of transparency, regarding what I consider as "Sprint 0":
The following side conditions are in place:
- It's not necessarily the same time box as the delivery Sprints, but we're working time boxed
- There is a Backlog for things we need
- The Deliverables are:
- A clear Product Vision
- A team that can deliver, including a capable PO and SM
- A technical environment which permits the team to deliver
- Management supports Scrum
- Stakeholders are aware of how Scrum changes the game
- Assured Funding
- Dedicated availability of developers on the team
- The team (i.e. the transition team) is delivering using an Inspect+Adapt approach.
To me, discussing about how to name that phase is just a game of po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
Maybe we can end the religious discussion around Sprint 0 by just calling it the "Potato"?