|
I feel your pain. The code is open source not open plan.
I may not last forever but the mess I leave behind certainly will.
|
|
|
|
|
If
snorkie wrote: they expanded the team so we can't fit around a conference room
... then you aren't doing Scrum or any form of agile any more. A team of that size can't operate on the same level of interaction and giving you a bigger room for standup won't stop that from being the case.
Agile is for small* teams, management's job is to organise the people available to them into teams of appropriate sizes working on appropriately scaled problems, and find appropriate product owners² so that an agile approach within each team can work successfully.
*: Varies depending on sector and the style of your business and people, but 'fits round a table' is a good rule of thumb. In my company we have teams of typically 4 or so and things work well.
²: One of my least favourite pieces of terminology in agile. The product owner does not own the product, necessarily, and he isn't even necessarily asked about the details product. He's more of a domain expert or prospective end user, generally.
|
|
|
|
|
I have actually re-branded the process to
<ScrumDictatorsName>Scrum . Since it is not agile or self organizing. The only person that truly believes that it is still SCRUM is the management that won't let us change anything. So I'm here to vent about it!
Hogan
modified 4-Mar-14 11:24am.
|
|
|
|
|
BobJanova wrote: 'fits round a table' is a good rule of thumb. In my company we have teams of typically 4 or so and things work well.
Yes, I've heard it stated as "3 - 9 or 6 +/- 3" .
Now don't get all nerdy on me and try to exevaluate that as one expression. 
This space intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
|
|
You may have misheard him?
|
|
|
|
|
Count yourself lucky. I almost got a job where I'd have all that plus 'pair programming'.
Do I have to share my juice box as well? And wear shorts?
Seriously, this sh!t was thought up by some variety of creep with low-level cunning instead of intelligence, because they hate anybody who can think for themselves. That's all. Everything else is bs designed to con gullible managers into smuggling it into our lives on their behalf while they take the fee and snigger up their sleeves all the way to the bank.
1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't it smell rotten   in there?
|
|
|
|
|
It is *like* management cannot manage it, so they either are so loose that their systems grow into absolute disarray, or they are just looking for that Magic Bullet to manage a difficult (to them) process (which they fail to understand).
So, they fall for ads like:
Are you whipping your Developers with the Right Whip? If not, you will NOT get the Right Results, how could you? It is NOT your fault, it is the Whips fault. Try our whip! Here is how it works... Sounds Nice, right? Even developers like this whip. (9 out of 10 developers preferred this whip over being smacked with a Waterfall boulder, *the other 72 developers quit the team because THEY could not handle it!)
On the other hand, I find Pair-Programming to be a great tool for bringing new people up to speed. And an even BETTER tool for confusing Motion for Progress!!!!
Love this:
Simon O'Riordan from UK wrote: 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.
|
|
|
|
|
If you liked that, you will love a series from the BBC called '1990'. It was created by a chap called Wilfred Greatorex and shown in 1978. He called it '1984+6', and it is available only from Pirate Bay. If you can't get it, or a proxy, ask a friend in a country where it hasn't come to pass yet.
A pal in North America ftp'd it to me. The reason they will never issue it on DVD or VHS is because they showed it once and got Maggie Thatcher all the way to real 1990, incidentally icing the Soviet Union on the way.
The (present) BBC must be sh!t scared to show it again. 
|
|
|
|
|
Code-Pairing was an "innovation" of XP Programming, which turned out to be a complete failure if you read the history of the Chrysler C3 Payroll Application where XP was "invented"...
Steve Naidamast
Black Falcon Software, Inc.
blackfalconsoftware@outlook.com
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much sounds like a labour camp to me. Are you in North Korea?
|
|
|
|
|
SCRUM is so last decade. All the cool kids are doing Kanban[^] now.
It's Agile, Jim - but not as you know it.
Anna ![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Tech Blog | Visual Lint
"Why would anyone prefer to wield a weapon that takes both hands at once, when they could use a lighter (and obviously superior) weapon that allows you to wield multiple ones at a time, and thus supports multi-paradigm carnage?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Long, long ago (1973), at a company that's blessedly vanished from this mortal plane.
Managements typically don't want to admit to certain facts:
- That engineers are not interchangeable modules;
- That engineers require conditions conducive to concentration;
- That engineers' work cannot be (and therefore must not be) scheduled;
- That engineers are habitually appreciation-deprived, and over time will come to resent it;
- That a dress code for engineers who never face a customer is patent idiocy that impedes productivity;
- That an engineer whose head is lolling back and whose feet are up on his desk is probably hard at work and should not be disturbed.
In short, managements tend to assume that what we do is indistinguishable from the day laborers Frederick Taylor observed for his time-and-motion studies. Those that learn better sometimes survive their earlier follies; the rest have sown the wind and reap the whirlwind.
Indeed, it sometimes gets infinitely worse. A true story: I happen to be a practicing Catholic. One fine day about thirty years ago, during my company-designated lunch hour, I was silently praying the Rosary, beads in my hand, when a manager came to my cubicle and loudly demanded that I "quit that nonsense" and attend to something he had thought up a few minutes earlier.
I'm still not certain why I let him live.
Why so many engineers yearn to enter management is something I'll never understand.
(This message is programming you in ways you cannot detect. Be afraid.)
|
|
|
|
|
mmmmmmm - crumpet"[^]
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
When you get home, google Angel Cloud 
|
|
|
|
|
I get lots of pictures of clouds shaped like angels, with numerous site where true believers and skeptics are arguing about the meaning, or lack of, in the skies.
Am I missing something?
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
*Somebody* body painted Angel Cloud. Banned by facebook. But not YouTube.
|
|
|
|
|
<sarcasm>You may keep complaining that is too noisy, but think in all the great ideas you'll come by, when meeting with everyone without moving from your place...</sarcasm>
|
|
|
|
|
Got this one in my mailbox today: 90 bands[^]
probably an older "go around". I found 30-35 myself, but I can't find the solution list to this thing.
(also because some things might be dubious  )
Does anyone have it?
(How many did you find?) 
|
|
|
|
|
Strange, but HERE[^] it says 75 bands... 
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
And now I'm a real spoilsport, but the answer seems to be HERE[^] - or at least, there is a link to the answers... And there seems to be only 70 after all...
Guess my Google Fu is better than yours...
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant
Anonymous
-----
The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine
Winston Churchill, 1944
-----
I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
Does "virgin" refer to that Justin kid? 
This space intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
|
|
Although I think Tom got it.
The answer is SABERTOOTH SALMON
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
Bend S
Lincoln ABE
right R
and blow one's horn? TOOT
Hard H
hymn heads off pSALM (remove first letter)
working ON
with old swimmer
SABERTOOTH SALMON[^]
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
