Okay? Agile got referenced in the article in a way that was not accurate. I made an attempt at correcting the misconception. If you have a beef with Agile, that’s fine, it’s just nonsensical to try and bring it up here.
>One of the four things, so one full quarter, of the Agile Manifesto is, "Customer collaboration over contract negotiation." ... I would humbly argue that the author, therefore, does not have much experience working on an "actually" agile team. ... I always feel bad quoting sections of the Agile Manifesto, as I think it's so short it should be read in full every time it's relevant, but it's hard to slip into a comment like this without derailing the remaining part of the message entirely. Please do give it a read, even if you've read it before.
My response was to your above statements. As is evident, almost everyone of Meyer's criticisms are proven True here.
Everything you quoted is couched in the stated assumption that one wants to be Agile already.
If you don’t want to be Agile, then don’t. I don’t care. However, if you’re trying to follow Agile principles, there are right ways, and there are less right ways.
It looks like you just want to argue. That’s great, it’s just not for me.
>However, if you’re trying to follow Agile principles, there are right ways, and there are less right ways.
What is this even supposed to mean? To me it seems like (6) indulged in by Agile proponents. At best the "Agile Manifesto" is a exhortation to cultivate a particular "mindset" but there is no Process nor Methodology defined anywhere. Hence there can be no "right" way; everything is made up each of which can be interpreted in many different ways.
My point is to expose the "hollowness" of Agile/Scrum/whatever.
