Can you elaborate further? I don't understand what part of my response this is directed at. Edit: Nvm, I figured it out. I assume you're referring to this? >

Can you elaborate further? I don't understand what part of my response this is directed at. Edit: Nvm, I figured it out. I assume you're referring to this? > Sprint planning on the other hand is almost completely unnecessary since we have a bunch of long running one person projects that will get done when they get done. Each sprint is basically just everyone going, "I'm continuing what I was working on last sprint". Honestly, not a ton. If we worked in isolation, we could probably drop them and little would change for us. The value that I feel like they bring are: - It forces developers to agree on and commit to a certain amount of work for those two weeks. If a dev says, I'm going to do these three things and two weeks later they're not done with #1 it's a red flag. They may have a totally legitimate reason, but it at least forces us to ask the question. - Kind of in the same thought process it helps us break month long projects down into smaller deliverables and communicate the status outward. We could easily do this without sprints, but some sort of break down is needed, so why not sprints? - Other teams are doing more traditional sprint planning, so it gives us all a common language to communicate in. If we need something from another team, being on the same schedule as everyone else is nice. - Our release schedule is tied to sprints. Without sprints it'd be much harder to keep track of what is going out when. Just to give more detail, we do have a sprint planning meeting, but it's basically just all of us meeting and saying what we're working on in the next sprint. Like I said in my original comment, we took the parts that worked for our team and threw away the rest.