you realize that's exactly the info you're supposed to have on hand for a standup in scrum or any other Scrum-like agile methodology. What you accomplished yesterday, what you're going to be working on today, and what obstacles you need help with.
Absolutely accurate, but you did leave out the part about "when your boss asks you," which I think is what gave the OP a shudder.
This is the big area where scrum goes awry. Defenders of scrum object, reasonably enough, to the claim that scrum leads to micromanagement of developers. The daily standup specifically isn't supposed to be a daily status report to your boss, complete with renewed application of deadline pressure. In fact, I remember reading once that in a scrum meeting, only those who are producing are even supposed to speak. It is specifically not supposed to take the form of a status update.
My main criticism of this defense of scrum is that I think scrum is somewhat prone to this kind of corruption. It may not be what is supposed to happen, but it's not a corruption out of left field either, it does seem to be an inherent risk. The presence of a daily standup, where developers can be put under a microscope and micromanaged under the guise of a developer friendly methodology, is just too tempting for bosses or other stakeholders who want to micromanage.
I wish I could get my management and team to even adopt so much as a weekly retrospective like this. I've been clamoring for it, begging for it, showing how a lack of a methodology to GSD is having a real impact.
