With any story like this there's always one bit that's understated. There's agile as it is practiced and agile as it is described by the founders. They're quite

With any story like this there's always one bit that's understated. There's agile as it is practiced and agile as it is described by the founders. They're quite different. Agile as described by the founders is so squishy it can almost never be wrong. How so? There is no process. There is no explicit denial of waterfall process. There's only values and stated preferences. If an agile project fails one can always say "Why didn't you choose a better process for the people?" Ultimately the whole point was to deliver working software and optimize for change. That hasn't died as far as I can tell... We just achieve it in many different ways. What could be more agile than that?