4 ms·

Scrum: Putting a Name on Intelligent Development Practice

3 points by baha_man 19y ago

gruseom 19y ago
Although often used with Agile processes, Scrum actually has nothing inherently to do with Agile ... except that it is one of the two most prominent agile processes and its creators helped write the Agile Manifesto. By this logic, although he often plays with them, Keith Richards has nothing inherently to do with the Rolling Stones. Edit: software "processes" of any kind are pretty anathema to hacker culture.
- nkohari 19y ago
  Software development processes, as "corporate" as they may appear, are absolutely necessary in any professional development environment. A team, no matter how talented, has to maintain some sort of organization in order to succeed. No offense, but if you don't believe me, you've never written a project big enough to matter. It's good to see companies move away from waterfall and toward agile strategies, though. They're more representative of the real development process.
  - plinkplonk 19y ago
    "Software development processes, as "corporate" as they may appear, are absolutely necessary in any professional development environment." You need to be explicit what you are saying here. If you are saying that any team has a "way of working", i.e you equate a "process" to a "loosely defined way of working", then you are right, but that is a tautology. A working team has a way of working... duh! If you are saying that you need one of these branded / book and consultant heavy "methodologies" to be "professional", then that is a less easily defended statement. "No offense, but if you don't believe me, you've never written a project big enough to matter." This is very condescending and very bad logic to boot. No your "no offense" does not help. If you have an argument, just lay it out and swallow the insults. Thanks in advance!
    - nkohari 19y ago
      I absolutely was not saying that as a software developer, you need consultants or branded methodologies to tell you how to do your job. Did you read the article? I thought the point of it was that software "methodologies" are essentially just putting names to solid development practices. If you'd even read the title of the article, you would have gotten that out of it. What I was trying to express is that at least _some_ formalization of your process is vital, and giving it a name lets you develop a common vocabulary. Then, when you bring in a new person and tell them you use Scrum (for example), if they've used it before, they have a basic understanding of how you do business. If not, they at least have something they can Google for. The specific point that I was trying to refute is that process is "anathema" to hacker culture. You simply cannot gunslinger your way through a large development effort. And, I stand by my original statement, in that if you believe that you can succeed with a team of more than 3 or 4 people working on a project with no real process, then you haven't tried (and failed). I know, because I felt that way before I had the experience to know better. I wasn't intending for it to sound condescending, but take it that way if you must. Thanks in advance! <-- This _was_ meant to sound condescending, though. Sarcastic, too.
plinkplonk 19y ago
Scrum is also reminiscent of pyramid schemes. Anyone who sits through a 2 day course is a "Certified Scrum Master" - strong overtones of snake oil.

3 points by baha_man 19y ago

Although often used with Agile processes, Scrum actually has nothing inherently to do with Agile ... except that it is one of the two most prominent agile processes and its creators helped write the Agile Manifesto. By this logic, although he often plays with them, Keith Richards has nothing inherently to do with the Rolling Stones. Edit: software "processes" of any kind are pretty anathema to hacker culture.

nkohari 19y ago
Software development processes, as "corporate" as they may appear, are absolutely necessary in any professional development environment. A team, no matter how talented, has to maintain some sort of organization in order to succeed. No offense, but if you don't believe me, you've never written a project big enough to matter. It's good to see companies move away from waterfall and toward agile strategies, though. They're more representative of the real development process.
- plinkplonk 19y ago
  "Software development processes, as "corporate" as they may appear, are absolutely necessary in any professional development environment." You need to be explicit what you are saying here. If you are saying that any team has a "way of working", i.e you equate a "process" to a "loosely defined way of working", then you are right, but that is a tautology. A working team has a way of working... duh! If you are saying that you need one of these branded / book and consultant heavy "methodologies" to be "professional", then that is a less easily defended statement. "No offense, but if you don't believe me, you've never written a project big enough to matter." This is very condescending and very bad logic to boot. No your "no offense" does not help. If you have an argument, just lay it out and swallow the insults. Thanks in advance!
  - nkohari 19y ago
    I absolutely was not saying that as a software developer, you need consultants or branded methodologies to tell you how to do your job. Did you read the article? I thought the point of it was that software "methodologies" are essentially just putting names to solid development practices. If you'd even read the title of the article, you would have gotten that out of it. What I was trying to express is that at least _some_ formalization of your process is vital, and giving it a name lets you develop a common vocabulary. Then, when you bring in a new person and tell them you use Scrum (for example), if they've used it before, they have a basic understanding of how you do business. If not, they at least have something they can Google for. The specific point that I was trying to refute is that process is "anathema" to hacker culture. You simply cannot gunslinger your way through a large development effort. And, I stand by my original statement, in that if you believe that you can succeed with a team of more than 3 or 4 people working on a project with no real process, then you haven't tried (and failed). I know, because I felt that way before I had the experience to know better. I wasn't intending for it to sound condescending, but take it that way if you must. Thanks in advance! <-- This _was_ meant to sound condescending, though. Sarcastic, too.

plinkplonk 19y ago

Scrum is also reminiscent of pyramid schemes. Anyone who sits through a 2 day course is a "Certified Scrum Master" - strong overtones of snake oil.