The Scrum Master for a home-robot company's app team is asked by the VP of Engineering to also personally review and approve every pull request before it merges, since 'the Scrum Master should ensure quality.' Is this an appropriate expectation of the Scrum Master accountability?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Quality on a Scrum Team is baked into how the Developers build the thing, not bolted on by someone standing outside the code reviewing it. The Scrum Master's job is coaching the team toward a strong Definition of Done and a healthy process — not personally becoming the last gate every pull request has to pass through.
Full Explanation
The Developers are accountable for creating a valuable, useful Increment every Sprint, and adhering to the Definition of Done — which includes practices like code review — is part of how they deliver that, not a task assigned to the Scrum Master. The Scrum Master serves the Scrum Team by coaching on self-management and cross-functionality and by helping the team improve its practices and Definition of Done, which is real support for quality, but it is coaching from outside the work rather than personally executing the work. Framing 'ensure the Increment meets the Definition of Done' as the Scrum Master directly gatekeeping every review confuses supporting the standard with performing the check, which belongs to the Developers. Treating the accountability as covering 'any activity that improves quality' is too broad — it would let almost any responsibility get reassigned to the Scrum Master, eroding the Developers' ownership of their own craft. Having the Scrum Master assign a specific reviewer is also wrong, since Developers decide internally how they organize their own work. A useful check: ask who is accountable if a low-quality Increment ships — that accountability sits with the Developers, not with whoever coached them.