I stumbled across this article while rewatching the movie and looking for agreement on its horrible message.
I agree with everything you say, except that Nate is also totally wrong about his birthday. Birthdays come second to jobs when you’re an adult.
And, as you highlighted earlier in the article, much of the time teams don’t have the confidence that they will be able to progressively refine the solution.
So nobody takes the “working small” approach because the belief is that it will just lead to rushed release without the opportunity to improve it.
Yes. There’s definitely no “right” answer. And, as you say, the best teams made it to the final rounds in the right order. And it was a great tournament, I enjoyed every minute (…at least until leaving after the closing ceremony, realizing that all the buses had stopped, and trying to help 10 of team Costa Rica get to the after party!).
This is a great method for being fair to the teams, and a bad method for promoting roller derby as a sport.
If you only care about the players on those teams and the super invested fans, then sure, this is the fairest way to measure.
No, I get that. What I’m saying is that for many companies, their definition of “Agile” means “we do some sprints”. You’re right that Agile is more of a philosophy. My argument is that companies will say they’re Agile because they do something related to an Agile framework, e.g. sprints, without subscribing to the philosophy.
Essentially the argument is that Agile isn’t working because it’s not really Agile. Which I have lots of sympathy with. What most companies call Agile is a couple of pieces of the process…maybe some sprints…and no real buy in to the broader concept.
This happens so much.
At the pull request stage, I wouldn’t even flip a coin.
The developer who’s implemented the valid solution wins. A comment from a developer who “doesn’t like” that implementation (based on subjective preference) doesn’t override that.