> The way I like to manage projects these days is a kind of kanban system with a task queue, and 1-2x a week brief cadence meetings to discuss priority/alignment and any blockers.
Sounds pretty agile to me.
While the "defenders" of agile might be employing No True Scotsman fallacies, it's detractors (which I personally seem quite a bit more numerous on HN) are often doing the same in reverse: refusing to define what "agile" actually means, and just throwing together a bunch of anecdotes and feelings about excessive meetings and estimates being misused to measure productivity.
> refusing to define what "agile" actually means, and just throwing together a bunch of anecdotes and feelings about excessive meetings and estiybeing misused to measure productivity.
I mean - this seems necessary when the agile manifesto is extremely vague and practitioners can't seem to agree on the One True Way to do agile - and in the absence of formal studies and analysis, what else is there but anecdotes?
Sounds pretty agile to me.
While the "defenders" of agile might be employing No True Scotsman fallacies, it's detractors (which I personally seem quite a bit more numerous on HN) are often doing the same in reverse: refusing to define what "agile" actually means, and just throwing together a bunch of anecdotes and feelings about excessive meetings and estimates being misused to measure productivity.