3 ms·

> Forcing the team to pay attention is probably harder in an async conversation chain than a meeting but I don't think ineffective is correct. I think this is

by mrkurt 6y ago

> Forcing the team to pay attention is probably harder in an async conversation chain than a meeting but I don't think ineffective is correct. I think this is a feature. If people aren't paying attention to asynchronous information, there's a problem. Either the information isn't useful or the team isn't functional.

jayd16 6y ago
It might fall under "non-functional team" but active listening/reading of usually banal but sometimes critical information is simply not an easy thing to do in a routine format. The information in a standup is team-wide because you do not know what will be important to who. It takes some amount of skill and discipline from the team.
- mrkurt 6y ago
  We 1000% agree on this, but it's still fun to talk about. I think that's just low signal to noise. It definitely takes skill and discipline, but it's also a matter of improving habits. Standups were originally a "better habit". There's a cost, though, especially as teams are more distributed (and diverse).
  - jayd16 6y ago
    Agreed. It seems like most of these problems arise from cargo culting the habits without understanding the purpose behind those habits.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Part of this is because the standard format encourages including shit that no-one cares about, or that a glance at the issue tracker or repo activity would (should...) clarify immediately if anyone wants to know. If your "no blockers" updates could be written by a very simple script maybe don't bother with those parts. Or, god, worse if it's manager-centric and everyone's listing every little damn thing they did yesterday just to make sure they sound sufficiently busy. Ugh. No one gives a shit (except your manager, if they're bad and letting standups be used this way) do you need anything? No? Then move on.

3 ms·

> Forcing the team to pay attention is probably harder in an async conversation chain than a meeting but I don't think ineffective is correct. I think this is

by mrkurt 6y ago

jayd16 6y ago
It might fall under "non-functional team" but active listening/reading of usually banal but sometimes critical information is simply not an easy thing to do in a routine format. The information in a standup is team-wide because you do not know what will be important to who. It takes some amount of skill and discipline from the team.
- mrkurt 6y ago
  We 1000% agree on this, but it's still fun to talk about. I think that's just low signal to noise. It definitely takes skill and discipline, but it's also a matter of improving habits. Standups were originally a "better habit". There's a cost, though, especially as teams are more distributed (and diverse).
  - jayd16 6y ago
    Agreed. It seems like most of these problems arise from cargo culting the habits without understanding the purpose behind those habits.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Part of this is because the standard format encourages including shit that no-one cares about, or that a glance at the issue tracker or repo activity would (should...) clarify immediately if anyone wants to know. If your "no blockers" updates could be written by a very simple script maybe don't bother with those parts. Or, god, worse if it's manager-centric and everyone's listing every little damn thing they did yesterday just to make sure they sound sufficiently busy. Ugh. No one gives a shit (except your manager, if they're bad and letting standups be used this way) do you need anything? No? Then move on.