3 ms·

Honestly, I can't understand all of the vitriol around "agile" methods that arises here occasionally. If you're doing something that works for your team, do it,

Honestly, I can't understand all of the vitriol around "agile" methods that arises here occasionally. If you're doing something that works for your team, do it, if it doesn't work, do something else. Isn't that the whole idea behind "agile" stuff? Do people get stuck in situations where they have to do X because "we're doing agile, and agile says we must do X"? If so, can't the offenders be gently pointed to http://agilemanifesto.org http://agilemanifesto.org ?

brazzy 14y ago
I believe ist's a combination of never having experienced the monstrosities agile was invented to replace, having experienced agile done wrong, and natural cowboy coder hybris.
- paulrademacher 14y ago
  In my experience, the "cowboy coder" is sometimes indeed disruptive (large unannounced refactors, e.g.), but almost always they are the most productive people on the team, the ones who contribute the best and most code.
  - Morcane 14y ago
    well, in my experience, cowboy coders fuck up, leave and have others fix the mess they left.
wpietri 14y ago
Oh, the vitriol is entirely earned. I learned one of the Agile methods before the term Agile was even invented. Adopting it made a giant difference in the quality and sanity of my work. But so many people today have have pseudo-Agile methods inflicted on them in large corporate contexts. There, the point isn't to make things saner and more effective. It's to please some executive who has a bee in their bonnet. And often, they only adopt some labels and some rituals. It's all pain, no gain. I wrote about how this happened here: http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how-we-fell-in/ http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how... But it's at the point where I avoid using the term "Agile". Or any other buzzword. I look at the circumstances, and say, "Hey, you guys feel pain X. Can we try change Y and see if that helps?" Often, the tool is one from the Agile or Lean toolbox. But I won't talk about the particular process I'm borrowing from because a) most people don't care, and b) a lot of people have been burned with faux-Agile adoptions.
- Evbn 14y ago
  So if I start calling myself wpietri and go out committing atrocities, when people start spitting on you, that vitriol is entirely earned?
  - wpietri 14y ago
    The analogy doesn't quite hold. I believe the bulk of what people call "Agile" these days is terrible. You could say that most of that isn't the true Agile. But at some point I think that isn't a battle worth fighting. Personally, I just say that Agile started out as X and has become Y. I would rather they didn't throw the baby out with their bathwater, but in the stories I have heard, the vitriol is entirely valid. I don't think it should be all directed at "Agile", in that managers deserve a lot, as do the hierarchical power structures in which the managers work. But the Agile people also made choices that led to this outcome, so I think it's fair that there's some spleen-venting directly at the Agile movement.

brazzy 14y ago

I believe ist's a combination of never having experienced the monstrosities agile was invented to replace, having experienced agile done wrong, and natural cowboy coder hybris.

paulrademacher 14y ago
In my experience, the "cowboy coder" is sometimes indeed disruptive (large unannounced refactors, e.g.), but almost always they are the most productive people on the team, the ones who contribute the best and most code.
- Morcane 14y ago
  well, in my experience, cowboy coders fuck up, leave and have others fix the mess they left.

wpietri 14y ago

Oh, the vitriol is entirely earned. I learned one of the Agile methods before the term Agile was even invented. Adopting it made a giant difference in the quality and sanity of my work. But so many people today have have pseudo-Agile methods inflicted on them in large corporate contexts. There, the point isn't to make things saner and more effective. It's to please some executive who has a bee in their bonnet. And often, they only adopt some labels and some rituals. It's all pain, no gain. I wrote about how this happened here: http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how-we-fell-in/ http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how... But it's at the point where I avoid using the term "Agile". Or any other buzzword. I look at the circumstances, and say, "Hey, you guys feel pain X. Can we try change Y and see if that helps?" Often, the tool is one from the Agile or Lean toolbox. But I won't talk about the particular process I'm borrowing from because a) most people don't care, and b) a lot of people have been burned with faux-Agile adoptions.

Evbn 14y ago
So if I start calling myself wpietri and go out committing atrocities, when people start spitting on you, that vitriol is entirely earned?
- wpietri 14y ago
  The analogy doesn't quite hold. I believe the bulk of what people call "Agile" these days is terrible. You could say that most of that isn't the true Agile. But at some point I think that isn't a battle worth fighting. Personally, I just say that Agile started out as X and has become Y. I would rather they didn't throw the baby out with their bathwater, but in the stories I have heard, the vitriol is entirely valid. I don't think it should be all directed at "Agile", in that managers deserve a lot, as do the hierarchical power structures in which the managers work. But the Agile people also made choices that led to this outcome, so I think it's fair that there's some spleen-venting directly at the Agile movement.