3 ms·

This guy is a grifter with uninformed, ranty opinions, and it's a shame he is getting so many of these HN eyeballs for his purposefully provocative nonsense. H

This guy is a grifter with uninformed, ranty opinions, and it's a shame he is getting so many of these HN eyeballs for his purposefully provocative nonsense. Here's my more comprehensive post the last time this was raised: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37289151#37290237 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37289151#37290237 The TL;DR is that he's just making unsubstantiated angry ravings and being treated like he's saying something meaningful because there are people on this site who happen to agree with him. But if course, if you pay him, he'll say whatever you like, per his website.

aidenn0 3y ago
I think the reason he's getting upvotes is that a lot of people have had similar experiences. It should be obvious that adopting Scrum won't fix a dysfunctional organization[1]; nothing in the previous post, nor this one argues more than that. I'm more interested in some of the comments I have seen here of people observing the adoption of Scrum as significantly reducing the velocity at what was previously observed to be well run. Maybe adopting the more formal process revealed an underlying organizational dysfunction that could remain hidden in the previous laissez-faire culture, maybe there's something wrong with how Scrum gets implemented at those places, and maybe there's actually something wrong with Scrum itself. My only interaction with things explicitly described as "agile" (Scrum, or otherwise) appeared to be very large organizations mostly just renaming roles and processes that already existed, with a few minor changes that did not appear to have any effect (other than being able to claim that they were now "agile"), so I don't have any personal experience to answer any of these questions. 1: Though in defense of the ranters, you'll be able to find many Scrum consultants that will argue it can.
Yhippa 3y ago
I'm not going to provide a source, but I bet a lot of developers can relate to what he said. It feels like a lot of us have had Scrum shoved down our throats at some point or another and it feels great to finally lash out.

aidenn0 3y ago

I think the reason he's getting upvotes is that a lot of people have had similar experiences. It should be obvious that adopting Scrum won't fix a dysfunctional organization[1]; nothing in the previous post, nor this one argues more than that. I'm more interested in some of the comments I have seen here of people observing the adoption of Scrum as significantly reducing the velocity at what was previously observed to be well run. Maybe adopting the more formal process revealed an underlying organizational dysfunction that could remain hidden in the previous laissez-faire culture, maybe there's something wrong with how Scrum gets implemented at those places, and maybe there's actually something wrong with Scrum itself. My only interaction with things explicitly described as "agile" (Scrum, or otherwise) appeared to be very large organizations mostly just renaming roles and processes that already existed, with a few minor changes that did not appear to have any effect (other than being able to claim that they were now "agile"), so I don't have any personal experience to answer any of these questions. 1: Though in defense of the ranters, you'll be able to find many Scrum consultants that will argue it can.

Yhippa 3y ago

I'm not going to provide a source, but I bet a lot of developers can relate to what he said. It feels like a lot of us have had Scrum shoved down our throats at some point or another and it feels great to finally lash out.