Re:
by ianmcgowan on Friday January 13, 2023 @04:48PM
(#34374348)
It seems that this generation's revolutionaries are always the next generation's reactionaries..
In this case, not so much. Most of the early Agile people I've had the chance to talk with are a bit horrified by what it's become.
Re:
by fijiaarone on Friday January 13, 2023 @08:43PM
(#34376418)
Isn’t that the definition of reactionary?
No? Reactionaries want to return to the previous status quo. The early Agile people I know instead would like to see a revolution actually happen.
Indeed. Most of the commentary I've seen from people who were around is that scrum isn't agile but just an impotent compromise made by people who thought business could never actually handle an actually agile (as in flexible) work methodology. I think they're mostly right; Scrum really isn't very flexible.
On top of that, like most popular languages and technologies it isn't really good enough for people who care, but it's good enough for people who don't and also happens to please "biz" people.
Totally agreed! And "good enough for people who don't [care]" is exactly it. Mainstream adopters for anything don't want big improvements if they have to change: https://williampietri.com/writing/2011/agiles-second-chasm-a...
I don't think you're wrong, but I should point out that Agile started out as a rebellion against "meetings, rituals, and meta-work and not actual productivity". As somebody who got involved in one of the Agile tributaries before the term "Agile" was coined, I'd say the actual problem is older and deeper.
I look forward to another rebellion, but would-be revolutionaries should make sure they don't fall into the same trap, or you too will see your new terms and bold ideas corrupted to the point of meaninglessness.