4 ms·

> Every time I fought the double daily standups, the pointless plannings (where we plan when we know nothing, and by the time we get to work on the tasks, every

by danwee 3y ago

> Every time I fought the double daily standups, the pointless plannings (where we plan when we know nothing, and by the time we get to work on the tasks, everybody forgets what they agreed on), I failed. That's because indirectly you're suggesting to get rid of people as well. You see, for any pointless ceremony, there's someone (or more) behind it who get paid for that. If you suddendly suggest that perhaps ceremony A and ceremony B don't actually add value (which is probably true), then what you're suggesting is that the people who brought and who offer those ceremonies (typically scrum masters, sometimes PMs) are doing something pointless. You may expect that they won't hear you at all because who likes to hold the "I'm doing pointless stuff and get paid for it" label? Upper management may know about this, but upper management is too concerned with other topics that they barely listen to the people at the bottom of the ladder.

serial_dev 3y ago
> That's because indirectly you're suggesting to get rid of people as well. That could have certainly been the case in some cases (the overpaid British corporate Scrum master consultant). For the product owners, it could have been the "nobody gets fired for buying IBM": nobody gets reprimanded in a traditional, slow moving, German company for sticking to the same ol Scrum ceremonies. For some developers, they might have valued the meetings for the pointlessness of it: just say your internet is poor, turn off the camera, then do the dishes, take out the trash, jump in with a hot take to start another 20 discussion in the call, go on to working out, and preparing dinner. After I failed to make any change in the organization after a year of trying, I switched my modus operandi to the above described developer, and started looking for another job.
icedchai 3y ago
This stuff is to keep people employed, 100%. 10+ years ago, engineering teams didn't have as much overhead.

by danwee 3y ago

serial_dev 3y ago

> That's because indirectly you're suggesting to get rid of people as well. That could have certainly been the case in some cases (the overpaid British corporate Scrum master consultant). For the product owners, it could have been the "nobody gets fired for buying IBM": nobody gets reprimanded in a traditional, slow moving, German company for sticking to the same ol Scrum ceremonies. For some developers, they might have valued the meetings for the pointlessness of it: just say your internet is poor, turn off the camera, then do the dishes, take out the trash, jump in with a hot take to start another 20 discussion in the call, go on to working out, and preparing dinner. After I failed to make any change in the organization after a year of trying, I switched my modus operandi to the above described developer, and started looking for another job.

icedchai 3y ago

This stuff is to keep people employed, 100%. 10+ years ago, engineering teams didn't have as much overhead.