Re: [extremeprogramming] Origin of term "standup"?

In our teams, we have a day planning. It could be 5 minutes or 45. We are usually working in one or two mobs. The fewer divisions, the less planning we need on a daily basis.
long term planning, if and when necessary, isn’t done in the meeting.
If the whole team works together in one mob all day, status and intention are shared constantly and they talk to each other all day. Standup is redundant. That is how I have experienced it, and how Woody has presented it. It seems straightforward.

When I see the 3 questions Jira-update meeting, it is a fairly sure sign of dysfunction.Likewise when people have nothing in common because each one has their own individual assignments and deadlines, and they are standing around for 15 minutes ignoring each other.
I just don’t get the idea that the meeting is very beneficial and important, so we should get it done in 15 minutes and not waste any more time on it,  it is either important and beneficial OR it is wasted time. I don’t know how it can be both at the same time.
But I have a sensitivity to cognitive dissonance,and other people don’t seem to be bothered by this particular instance so I’ll just let it go.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


On Saturday, November 23, 2019, 2:05 PM, Steve Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:

Just because something does not cure the pathological cases (or does not help in the ideal cases) does not mean it does not help in the majority of cases.
The whole idea of a recommended practices like the "stand-up" is to give teams a healthy start on their Agile journey.  Once a team has achieved self-determination, then the team should be trusted to modify, jettison, and/or add practices as they discover what works and does not work for them in their context.  An XP team or Scrum team that is still going strictly by the book after 2 years is rarely a healthy Agile team.



On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 12:52 PM Tim Ottinger via Groups.Io <[email protected]> wrote:

You know, I guess I've been in teams a long time.
I know that there are people in common-boss groupings who don't talk and who are told that they shouldn't. I forget that there are ”teams” like that and just can't imagine it sometimes.
As you were. But if that is the case, then standups are too weak a curative, maybe something more intense.
What if you assume pairing, mob programming, or like group activities are the norm, and there us a big visible board?


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad


On Saturday, November 23, 2019, 12:40 PM, J. B. Rainsberger <[email protected]> wrote:

On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:39 PM Tim Ottinger via Groups.Io <[email protected]> wrote:
 
If there are blockers, then waiting until the next meeting is pointless. There should be impromptu chats and people should swarm as necessary; hard if they all have individual assignments or don’t actually see each other much.

Yes, clearly. The Standup is one way to establish the habit of talking. It's hard to have impromptu chats if we have the feeling that we should just be heads-down cranking. I see Standup as a habit-building practice, not a long-term solution.-- 
J. B. (Joe) Rainsberger :: https://tdd.training :: http://www.jbrains.ca :: http://www.thecodewhisperer.com












-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#160329): https://groups.io/g/extremeprogramming/message/160329
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/56090734/2417047
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/extremeprogramming/leave/4902963/619838065/xyzzy  [[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-