3 ms·

So what you are saying is that the standup really _is_ for project tracking Only in the sense that the team needs to know itself how work is progressing, in or

So what you are saying is that the standup really _is_ for project tracking Only in the sense that the team needs to know itself how work is progressing, in order to understand what they can realistically achieve, or to estimate more accurately, or to identify pain points that need to be resolved. Not tracking in the 'report to an external agency how much is being done every day', which I agree is awful. The point of the meeting is often… I maintain that is this happens, you are in a bad environment.

humanrebar 10y ago
> Only in the sense that the team needs to know itself how work is progressing That's what retrospectives, demos, and stories are for. If there is concern about individual performance, managers could create dashboard of their teams' git commits, allowing them to jump around and see peoples' work passively without disrupting the entire team.
- lairdpop 10y ago
  When developers pull tasks, their name goes on it. If one dev keeps pulling tasks that don't get done, or take far too long, that becomes obvious to the whole team quite rapidly. That doesn't "disrupt" the team at all.
  - humanrebar 10y ago
    Right. The point is you don't really need them to stand up every day to say "still working on tasks A, B, and C". You'd just look at the board and say, "Hey, you have four things assigned to you. Are they blocked? Otherwise, please do one thing at a time."
  - watwut 10y ago
    You don't need whole team to see that. You need to go to that one developer and ask him why tasks are not finished. I case he has solvable problem, you get the chance to fix that solvable problem. In case he does not, you need to watch him more and maybe eventually fire him. The team knowing about whole thing won't make your job for you. It will just make them lash at each other unpredictably.