* Agile Critisism: The snake oil is all over and getting worse!
* Agilista: It's not done properly!
* Agile Criticism: No True Scotsman!
I think the NTS is where things usually leave the line and end up in a lot of splutters and anecdotes.
Sometimes I wonder if the great flamewars and their arguments should be canonized into standard textfiles and passed around. Much like the old story of joking by only using numbers. :-)
Agile certainly isn't unique in this regard. I've seen an MVC project with only one action on only one controller which had a ton of parameters to control its behavior. There's a balance between "I need to thoroughly understand how to use this concept idiomatically" and "I don't have time to read up on another buzzword."
More importantly, they're daily status reports to each others, internally to your team.
Some examples: standups becoming daily status reports, the customer demo becoming it's own production, and let's not get started on retrospectives.
Outside of this kind of concrete instantiation, "Agile" seems to diverge into, on the one side, a combination of empty buzzwords and arbitrary churn where no one knows who is responsible for what or what standards are because there is no process, or externally-defined prescriptive processes of exactly the sort that the Agile Manifesto was a reaction against.
People over processes has to mean processes are tools that serve the people on the team, not "no process" or "process taken as received wisdom because of respect for the person or institution originating it".
Further remark: I figured I'd just bypass the otherwise-upcoming NTS yell and just clear the air so we could all go for the random anecdata and general arguments about Waterfall! Bad Agile! Scrum Masters! and how they caused problems.