> I just mean 'sprints' and 'tickets' and 'points' and 'stand-ups' really. (Which I assume isn't what you're saying isn't that common, certainly seems it from..

> I just mean 'sprints' and 'tickets' and 'points' and 'stand-ups' really. (Which I assume isn't what you're saying isn't that common, certainly seems it from.. HN I suppose.) Those are not common in my experience either. Perhaps I've just avoided working at depressing places :-) I've never worked somewhere which actually named things 'stand-ups', 'points', 'stories', 'retros', or even 'sprints'. I'm familiar with the concepts, both from general reading, and thanks to someone who taught me all about Scrum, which was enough to put me off both Scrum and it's perverted form of Agile. If I hear those things mentioned in an interview, I soon have more questions, because there's "good Agile" and "bad Agile". Sprints have occurred, in that there have been places with regular meeting and review cycles. That can work really well, imho. But even then, from the sound of it I've avoided the kinds of places where people feel under constant 2-weekly pressure to count up story points and highlight competitive ticket metrics. I have a feeling I'll be starting at a place like that soon though. They use Jira, require a ticket for every PR, and by the sound of it are doomed to take a very long time to do anything. The tickets are written for accountability and reporting every change to management, so not written for developers. The approach smells like an anti-pattern to me. I don't expect to stay long; it's just a contract. I wouldn't choose a place like that for a long-term position, but I'm looking forward to the experience to find out what it's like with an open mind. I was hired as an interim team lead, but politics already changed what the role is since signing, and it's also been made clear that TLs there don't get to decide how anything is actually done. We'll see. I tend to bring new energy to a system.