4 ms·
Your second paragraph is the kind of wording that gives me, as a developer, the heebie-jeebies. If a development group is improving their workflow and structure
by shaggyfrog 15y ago
Your second paragraph is the kind of wording that gives me, as a developer, the heebie-jeebies. If a development group is improving their workflow and structure with the addition of a few thoughtfully chosen changes to what they had before (a morning standup meeting, shorter iterations, tracking burndown), then that to me sounds like a very pragmatic approach. Implementing even more changes, merely for the sake of having a capital-A "Agile" designation, just sounds like cargo cultism.
- LeafStorm 15y agoReminds me of a message I saw once on the "LuaForge Development" Google group. Literally 96 hours after the current LuaForge leadership and some people on lua-l decided to team up and create a new LuaForge, a buzzword-filled e-mail was sent to the mailing list entitled, "Request to use Agile Development Methodology." [1] Jim Whitehead responded, "You don't need agile development to have clearly defined roles, responsibilities and standards. A long time ago that used to be called 'project management' and it worked just fine =)" [1]: http://groups.google.com/group/luaforge-development/browse_thread/thread/d577b49ade8f33f5 http://groups.google.com/group/luaforge-development/browse_t...
- wpietri 15y agoI didn't say they should do it for Agile, I said they could do it for the benefits they could gain. I agree there's a problem with cargo cult Agile. There was a problem with cargo cult design patterns, too. In both cases, you can certainly turn your back on the hyped thing on the theory that your team is already sufficiently awesome.