At a company I worked for a few years ago, we did "stand up" type meetings in a park across the street, or on a balcony. We were mostly sitting down.

Ironically, this dogma is what the founders of Agile were trying to avoid.

This is not to say that the stand-up must be exactly as described in Scrum or elsewhere, but the key is that you have the Agile mindset and understand why you're doing the thing you're doing.

For example, the stand-up is a short and focused meeting where teams co-ordinate and get on the same page (which means it's NOT a status meeting).

We stand to keep the meeting short and focused. If you keep the meeting short and focused, then it doesn't matter if you're standing or sitting. Far too often, teams choose not to stand, lose sight of keeping the meeting short and focused, and transition to having long, boring, status meetings that aren't very useful.

If you choose to have tea before your stand-up, then have a short and focused meeting where everyone gets on the same page, then you're fine. If you're having wandering conversations that go nowhere or on wild tangents and never really seem to accomplish much of anything, then you've probably missed the point.

I have a video course dedicated entirely to the daily stand-up, good and bad habits, and how you can use Improv to get everyone focused, energized, and listening before the meeting. You can check it out here: http://ow.ly/dOmJJ

In my experience, most people practicing agile aren't well-versed in it and would benefit from applying it to the letter first, then modifying it to their needs.

I absolutely agree that the "slowing down" and tea ritual in front of the stand-up can potential be dangerous for speed and terseness if you aren't conscious about keeping the meeting to the point.

I can understand how it might sound controversial in the blog post. That said it worked great for us to have it in place as a buffer before the actual meeting. I've seen teams that were very disciplined in being prepared that didn't need an explicit buffer for getting into the moment or being on time before the meeting. Our "Stand-Ups" definitely got more focused and fluent since we have it in place. Definitely sounds counter-intuitive :)

Thanks for sharing your experience!

Moving on with the analysis, Agile with an uppercase A is an anti-pattern to how humans live and work in the first place. The idea of sprinting makes sense when you're within reach of the goal; not for the entire cycle of development unless what is being developed only takes 3 weeks from the start to the finish.

We need common sense back in the software world.

1) Agile != Scrum. Sprints are just a Scrum term not a general term in the agile community.

2) Many Scrum folk I talk to think sprint was a poor word choice (it wasn't intended to be taken as "as fast as possible" but "something with a defined end" - many short sprints rather than one long marathon). Many use the more neutral "iteration".

3) Not going as fast as possible and having a long term sustainable pace is what agile projects are all about. That's why you saw practices like "Sustainable Pace" in XP http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/overtime.html

How do you think that makes us feel?

The purpose of standing is to keep the meeting short and focused. Can you think of alternative ways that your team can ensure that the meeting is short and focused that doesn't require standing? If so, suggest them (or see what your team members suggest) and try them out!

Recommendation? We sit and the meetings are short or long or don't happen at all on an as needed basis.

Don't force your cure on those of us who do not have your ill.