one reason engineers are frustrated with daily rituals is this assumption that they are aimless creatures who need constant instructions from rational beings (product managers and such)
My position is that it's sad and childish, in both case. Devs are not aimless creatures. But my point is that it is just physically impossible to not deviate if you don't get feedback. And importantly: your biggest deviation occurs when you don't realise there is a mismatch, so when you would NOT call a meeting. Because of that, constant re-alignment that occurs even when people of the team thinks there is no deviation are needed. It is not a judgement on the devs aimlessness, it's just a mathematical reality.
It's a bit like saying: because of this disease, I need to take my pill every morning, but it is frustrating to have this assumption that I'm a aimless creatures who needs constant pill-taking, I should be able to take all the pill in one go and go on with my life.
It's not an assumption. It's reasoned inference obtained through extensive observation.
And it's not "managers" in general, of course. Just the ones who have no idea how to operate other than through Scrum.
But my point is that it is just physically impossible to not deviate if you don't get feedback.
It's not that no one wants "feedback". Rather, the perception has emerged that the rituals of Scrum are a pretty lousy (and basically counterproductive) way of delivering that feedback.
because of this disease, I need to take my pill every morning,
Except it turns out the "pill" in this case is a quack cure, basically. That's why people are resistant to taking it.
Managers that micromanage are idiots. If they would have been a dev, they would have been a dev that explains that all managers are obviously useless.
> Except it turns out the "pill" in this case is a quack cure, basically. That's why people are resistant to taking it.
The analogy flew very high above your head. I was responding to the logic "if it's daily, it's the proof it's because they believe we are aimless creatures that need to be managed". I just give an example where someone is asked to do something daily, and yet it is clearly not because of that.
You keep coming back to this caricature. And yet, I've never met anyone with this opinion.
I just give an example where someone is asked to do something daily, and yet it is clearly not because of that.
Right, you said they were being asked to (in reality: made to, not "asked to") do that because they effectively had a "disease".
When management takes that attitude about its rare and precious talent, well, all bets are off.
In that vein, I've sometimes wondered if this projected insinuation (of the developers' myopic tendencies and general haplessness in this regard), far from being an untended byproduct -- is in fact the whole point of Scrum.