I gave two definitions of velocity and you just used "that". I have no idea if we're in agreement or disagreement now. If you mean that Scrum uses sizes, then

I gave two definitions of velocity and you just used "that". I have no idea if we're in agreement or disagreement now. If you mean that Scrum uses sizes, then yeah. It tends to be better aligned with what you want because it uses sizes and priorities. It doesn't just count the raw number of changes as the target, even for its velocity measure (which isn't the target, but a guide, at least in theory). The target in Scrum is getting what the customer (again, in theory) wants as quickly as possible which means focusing on priorities. Velocity is there to see how well you're operating rather than being a goal. If you mean Agile (which version?) doesn't use sizes but just a raw count of changes for velocity, then we're in disagreement. I mean, there probably are idiots out there who do that. But that's not what's encouraged by anyone that cares about getting shit done. It's a useless measure especially if it becomes your target for optimization. Anyone can get high velocity if all changes count the same. Submit 500 change requests to add 500 logging statements. Wow they're fast! Also they're gaming the system.