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

Hey Tim,

I'm probably lucky because I've never encountered a team that talks
about work in terms of ticket numbers. The exception would be the
occasional notorious bug that came to be known by number, but that's
unusual in my experience. I'd be curious to know if this is a habit
that others have encountered often in the wild.

If so, then chalk that up to another reason not to have a bug tracker!
In my experience, a team that keeps the bug count in the range 0 to 4
or 5 doesn't need one at all. IIRC it was Ron who first identified the
need for a bug tracker as a symptom of a problem rather than the
essential tool that many folks consider it to be.

Charlie

On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 7:15 AM Tim Ottinger via Groups.Io
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I was specifically calling out BAD standups of the kind I described as a problem.
> BAD standup is a BAD practice.
> Stop having BAD standups is a better practice.
> And if you are all working together, stop having USELESS standups.
> Either it is valuable (in which case the 15 minute limit is unnecessary) or it is not valuable (and need not be done).
>
> Also, 99.99% of all teams do standups because “Agile requires it” (where “Agile” is a euphemism for scrum usually, or XP occasionally).  When the standups are used well, I promote them.
>
> See https://www.industriallogic.com/blog/over-starting-and-under-finishing/  as an article I wrote promoting a way of doing standups that is healthier than almost all the standups I see in the world.
>
> Now, that aside, if you’re mobbing all day, the morning standup isn’t very helpful and the 3 questions are completely redundant.
>
> Yesterday in mob we finished 2344,  then 2520, and today we’ll pick up 2078. No blockers.
> Yesterday in mob we finished 2344,  then 2520, and today we’ll pick up 2078. No blockers
> Yesterday in mob we finished 2344,  then 2520, and today we’ll pick up 2078. No blockers
> Yesterday in mob we finished 2344,  then 2520, and today we’ll pick up 2078. No blockers
> Yesterday in mob we finished 2344,  then 2520, and today we’ll pick up 2078. No blockers
> Yesterday in mob we finished 2344,  then 2520, and today we’ll pick up 2078. No blockers
>
>
> If we all already know what yesterday was, what today is, and who we’ll be working with, then a lot of the ceremony isn’t very helpful. What might be helpful is a planning meeting where we decide if 2078 really is the next thing we will do (what has changed?), how things are working in production, what new info we have from customers, how our last work is being received, etc. Big picture stuff is still helpful.
>
> But 3 questions is redundant in a mobbing team (not in all circumstances, don’t be silly), so either the ceremony is replaced or removed.
>
> That’s just how that works.
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
>
> On Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 2:38 AM, Alex Fürstenau <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Well put, Steve!
>
> And to go one step further. Why did this team introduce a standup in the first place. There must be some sort of intention behind it, e.g. Let’s get more x-functional and our first step is introducing a standup. But then the coach moved to a different team and now we are stuck with „just“ the standup. Are we better off than before the standup?
>
>
> Am 25.11.2019 um 18:24 schrieb Steve Gordon <[email protected]>:
>
> Just because a practice is being misused does not necessarily mean the practice itself is the problem.  If a team writes useless tests, does that make TDD or automated testing a bad practice?
>
> In your example, JIRA (or the approach/culture that makes JIRA seemingly necessary) is the likely root cause - the misuse of the standup is just the symptom.  Do you really think getting rid of the standup will motivate the team to use story names instead of ticket numbers or to swarm instead of working independently or to interact more outside of the standup?
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 8:25 AM Tim Ottinger via Groups.Io <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> I said I would let it go, but I don’t see how using 3 questions in a standup meeting in the morning focused on updating Jira is “many ways of working” but not doing that leaves only exactly 1.
>
> I find that uniformly, when people ARE doing it this way, it’s a sign of some dysfunction(s). That’s my experience. There are many ways of working that do NOT do that, just as there are many ways of working even if one does use Jira update meetings.
>
> But the Jira update meetings are almost always a sign that teamwork is lacking, people aren’t talking, and that the 15 minutes is mostly (usually about 13 minutes) wasted on everyone there.
>
> Classic “I worked on 2356 yesterday, today I hope to get started on 3440. No blockers” typically gives no information that anyone the team has any investment in hearing. Nobody knows your ticket numbers, and they all have their own. It’s a waste. Who really knows what 2330 means? Remember 2330? You worked on that last month. No? Me either.
>
>
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
>
> On Sunday, November 24, 2019, 11:52 AM, Steve Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> "When I see the 3 questions Jira-update meeting, it is a fairly sure sign of dysfunction."
>
> Saying that implies there is only one way for a team to work effectively.  I do not believe that.
>
> Furthermore, when this meeting is a sign of dysfunction, it is quite likely the meeting itself is not the most dysfunctional thing the team is or is not doing.  I would suspect JIRA is a often a much greater source of dysfunction than the meeting is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 

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

View/Reply Online (#160356): https://groups.io/g/extremeprogramming/message/160356
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]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-