Scrum is like low-management, similar to low-code.

With low-code, we say our programmers are not very good. So the less they program, the better. With low-management, we say that our managers are not capable of managing people, so the less they manage, the better.

managers are incapable - of anything, in any context - period.

that's why they became managers instead of $InsertProductiveJobName

Low-management is desirable.
Low-code is not.

Oh lord, what is low code?

@retoor google it. But a word of warning: It can get disgusting and make you want to puke.

then why is scrum me seeing the manager so frequently

can't even do that right

@Lensflare stupid people trying to simplify coding... Coding is the simple way to get the exact output you want. Do they also have low math?

@retoor this shit has been a huge hype a few years ago. Every idiot in a big dev company who isn‘t a dev himself has been prophesizing
that a few years into the future everything will be low code.

@retoor Yeah it's called Math Lit

scrum is scum

@kiki scrum, when done well, is actually not terrible. it's just that managers are too dumb to do it well.

@tosensei classic scrum has one purpose and one purpose only: to eliminate underperforming workers and replace them with new ones who perform better. This completely dehumanizes workers. No wonder scrum originated from Japan — the country with the most toxic office work culture on earth, where people work 80 hours a week and often commit suicide due to overworking.

Every “scrum” variant that is not classic scrum has all the harm and none the benefits.

Scrum is “perfect” in organizing, say, vehicle manufacturing plants, where blue collar workers are interchangeable and replaceable, pool of job applicants is infinitely large, and personal touches don't matter.

Applying classic scrum to IT teams, especially to startups, can be disastrous.

@kiki this completely opposes my experiences with scrum.

we use it mostly to plan what's gonna happen within the next sprint. and if the customer says "but i need THAT done today, and i need THIS done differently", we use scrum as a basis to tell the customer "fuck you. this is what's planned, this is what you're getting, and this is what you're paying for. want something different? wait for the next sprint."

but then again, we're doing scrum the right way by not doing scrum in the textbook way.

@tosensei what you’re doing probably works, but it isn’t scrum. And that’s a good thing!

I still don’t understand the purpose of management in software engineering.

@retoor they actually make it way more complicated.

@tosensei in our case switching tickets to something else with kinda same storypoints was allowed. I prefer hours way about storypoints to. In the end you get paid per hour and that's how the boss also thinks. Stupid abstraction layer.

@kiki sorry, but it IS an implementation of scrum. as much as any other implementation.

otherwise, that's like saying linux mint isn't linux just because it's not as awful as SUSE...

i think the primary mistake most people do with scrum is to see it as a strict ruleset, or simply as a way to "stretch the waterfall", instead of a flexible toolset.

@tosensei I studied scrum in the uni. I don’t have to convince you
It’s enough that you’ve read my message, and you’ll remember what I said

What I hate about scrum is the way it is forced upon me, without me having any say in it. My manager is still convinced that the 'daily standup' is good for me, that it's something I need in order to properly do my work. But if I need something from someone, I will go to that person immediately. I don't need a 'standup' for that.

Scrum encourages managers to manage the work, instead of managing people. And most IT managers really like this, as dealing with tickets is much easier than dealing with people. I think 95% of all IT managers (or managers in general) are just bad at managing people, which is kinda sad as this is basically their primary job.

@WillemD i'd even say that 100% of managers are bad at managing, period.