3 ms·

Standups with the entire team of say 5 or more people are usually a waste of time for most of the attendees. Most attendees are simply listening to updates and

by cudgy 5y ago

Standups with the entire team of say 5 or more people are usually a waste of time for most of the attendees. Most attendees are simply listening to updates and questions between the lead and the other team members. Sure, sometimes an unrelated developer might have insight but it is rare and can cause rabbit hole conversations that waste other team member’s time. Would prefer a structure where an experienced developer (preferably in area of work) meets one on one for 10-15 mins max with each team member, provides advice or refers the team member to resources to aid if needed.

herodoturtle 5y ago
I disagree with this, but only under certain conditions. The standup is meant to be a quick meeting, 10 minutes tops. It's not there for deep advice between lead and each team member. Instead it's there to get everyone on the same page. The deep one-on-one meetings still happen separately - when needed. And as you say, the added benefit of daily standups is that sometimes a team member has great insight into someone else's issue. Of course, standups that take too long are terrible. But if done right, they're helpful, and a lot of fun.
- cudgy 5y ago
  “get everyone on the same page” Meetings are expensive, even if they are for short periods. A simple email should be typically sufficient for information that is common to all team members. I’ve almost never attended a 10 minute meeting with more than 2 people. They are always longer, especially if they are fun.
- dustinmoris 5y ago
  > Instead it's there to get everyone on the same page. How do you get everyone on the same page if you cannot ask questions? This whole standup theatre is complete bullshit. It's true it's a waste of time. You say it's only meant to be a quick "status update" 10 minute meeting. What is the point of that if then asking questions is not allowed? If it is allowed then it's true though that for the majority of listeners it becomes a time sink. The best performing teams I've worked on had no standups. They talked to each other when there was something to talk about and they only talked to the folks who were genuinely interested in the conversation.
  - herodoturtle 5y ago
    > How do you get everyone on the same page if you cannot ask questions? Not sure why you're asking me this. I welcome questions in standups. And if a question warrants a deeper one-on-one chat, then at least everyone knows an issue has been raised (but often someone on the team knows the answer straight away). They hardly take up time. I suspect we have radically different experiences of standup meetings, hence the polar opposite views. In my case (16 year old company, high functioning team), daily standups are fun - hardly a chore - and you'd be surprised what surfaces in these team meetings (that wouldn't necessarily come to light if we were to simply rely on team members to speak up only "when there was something to talk about"). Just to be clear, I'm not criticising your lived experience. I don't doubt you for a second. But let's be fair - it really depends on the team, and the environment, and the desire for daily standups to begin with. It's a bit like project management tools. If abused, or used solely for the sake of ticking boxes, they're annoying. But if used correctly, and everyone is happy using them, then they certainly add value. I suppose it's highly anecdotal.
    - cudgy 5y ago
      It just seems highly unlikely that you are having 10 minute meetings while accomplishing anything beyond the usual small chit chat and banter that almost all social interactions require. It takes ten minutes alone to just gather a group of people, look at each other, and say hello.
      - herodoturtle 5y ago
        I can understand why you’d think that. If I may challenge your idea: what you describe only applies to teams that don’t meet often. My team has been doing this daily standup for years. Those 10 minutes are succinct - and effective. We save the chit chat (of which there’s plenty) for our lunch breaks and after hours. I wouldn’t blame someone for doubting it’s possible. But yeah, in our case, it just works.
        cudgy 5y ago

by cudgy 5y ago

herodoturtle 5y ago

I disagree with this, but only under certain conditions. The standup is meant to be a quick meeting, 10 minutes tops. It's not there for deep advice between lead and each team member. Instead it's there to get everyone on the same page. The deep one-on-one meetings still happen separately - when needed. And as you say, the added benefit of daily standups is that sometimes a team member has great insight into someone else's issue. Of course, standups that take too long are terrible. But if done right, they're helpful, and a lot of fun.

cudgy 5y ago
“get everyone on the same page” Meetings are expensive, even if they are for short periods. A simple email should be typically sufficient for information that is common to all team members. I’ve almost never attended a 10 minute meeting with more than 2 people. They are always longer, especially if they are fun.
dustinmoris 5y ago
> Instead it's there to get everyone on the same page. How do you get everyone on the same page if you cannot ask questions? This whole standup theatre is complete bullshit. It's true it's a waste of time. You say it's only meant to be a quick "status update" 10 minute meeting. What is the point of that if then asking questions is not allowed? If it is allowed then it's true though that for the majority of listeners it becomes a time sink. The best performing teams I've worked on had no standups. They talked to each other when there was something to talk about and they only talked to the folks who were genuinely interested in the conversation.
- herodoturtle 5y ago
  > How do you get everyone on the same page if you cannot ask questions? Not sure why you're asking me this. I welcome questions in standups. And if a question warrants a deeper one-on-one chat, then at least everyone knows an issue has been raised (but often someone on the team knows the answer straight away). They hardly take up time. I suspect we have radically different experiences of standup meetings, hence the polar opposite views. In my case (16 year old company, high functioning team), daily standups are fun - hardly a chore - and you'd be surprised what surfaces in these team meetings (that wouldn't necessarily come to light if we were to simply rely on team members to speak up only "when there was something to talk about"). Just to be clear, I'm not criticising your lived experience. I don't doubt you for a second. But let's be fair - it really depends on the team, and the environment, and the desire for daily standups to begin with. It's a bit like project management tools. If abused, or used solely for the sake of ticking boxes, they're annoying. But if used correctly, and everyone is happy using them, then they certainly add value. I suppose it's highly anecdotal.
  - cudgy 5y ago
    It just seems highly unlikely that you are having 10 minute meetings while accomplishing anything beyond the usual small chit chat and banter that almost all social interactions require. It takes ten minutes alone to just gather a group of people, look at each other, and say hello.
    - herodoturtle 5y ago
      I can understand why you’d think that. If I may challenge your idea: what you describe only applies to teams that don’t meet often. My team has been doing this daily standup for years. Those 10 minutes are succinct - and effective. We save the chit chat (of which there’s plenty) for our lunch breaks and after hours. I wouldn’t blame someone for doubting it’s possible. But yeah, in our case, it just works.
      - cudgy 5y ago