

Scrum: Putting a Name on Intelligent Development Practice - baha_man
http://bobgrommes.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/scrum-putting-a-name-on-intelligent-development-practice/

======
gruseom
_Although often used with Agile processes, Scrum actually has nothing
inherently to do with Agile_

... except that it _is_ one of the two most prominent agile processes and its
creators helped write the Agile Manifesto. By this logic, although he often
plays with them, Keith Richards has nothing inherently to do with the Rolling
Stones.

Edit: software "processes" of any kind are pretty anathema to hacker culture.

~~~
nkohari
Software development processes, as "corporate" as they may appear, are
absolutely necessary in any professional development environment. A team, no
matter how talented, has to maintain some sort of organization in order to
succeed. No offense, but if you don't believe me, you've never written a
project big enough to matter.

It's good to see companies move away from waterfall and toward agile
strategies, though. They're more representative of the real development
process.

~~~
plinkplonk
"Software development processes, as "corporate" as they may appear, are
absolutely necessary in any professional development environment."

You need to be explicit what you are saying here. If you are saying that any
team has a "way of working", i.e you equate a "process" to a "loosely defined
way of working", then you are right, but that is a tautology.

A working team has a way of working... duh!

If you are saying that you need one of these branded / book and consultant
heavy "methodologies" to be "professional", then that is a less easily
defended statement.

"No offense, but if you don't believe me, you've never written a project big
enough to matter."

This is very condescending and very bad logic to boot. No your "no offense"
does not help. If you have an argument, just lay it out and swallow the
insults. Thanks in advance!

~~~
nkohari
I absolutely was not saying that as a software developer, you need consultants
or branded methodologies to tell you how to do your job. Did you read the
article? I thought the point of it was that software "methodologies" are
essentially just putting names to solid development practices. If you'd even
read the title of the article, you would have gotten that out of it.

What I was trying to express is that at least _some_ formalization of your
process is vital, and giving it a name lets you develop a common vocabulary.
Then, when you bring in a new person and tell them you use Scrum (for
example), if they've used it before, they have a basic understanding of how
you do business. If not, they at least have something they can Google for.

The specific point that I was trying to refute is that process is "anathema"
to hacker culture. You simply cannot gunslinger your way through a large
development effort.

And, I stand by my original statement, in that if you believe that you can
succeed with a team of more than 3 or 4 people working on a project with no
real process, then you haven't tried (and failed). I know, because I felt that
way before I had the experience to know better. I wasn't intending for it to
sound condescending, but take it that way if you must.

Thanks in advance! <\-- This _was_ meant to sound condescending, though.
Sarcastic, too.

------
plinkplonk
Scrum is also reminiscent of pyramid schemes. Anyone who sits through a 2 day
course is a "Certified Scrum Master" - strong overtones of snake oil.

