Recently I was asked if it makes sense to do standups. Is it just a formal waste of time? Wouldn't it be more useful to spend the same amount of time by actual work? This is how our standup looks like, this is how the work would look like without it according to me and this is why I think it's worth doing standups: Standup optionally starts with a half-minute long announcement by the Scrum Master if somebody is missing and when will be this person available again. Without standup: We could check out this information from a well-prepared shared calendar but unexpected lates or illnesses which are missing from the calendar would require a little bit more communication and irrelevant discussion during the day. It would cause some delay for sure. Then we look at the burn-down chart of the sprint and to the status of the latest nightly build. Is it stable, what about automated tests which were run last night? We make a common standpoint in one minute which is clear a
At Craft Conf, there were some presentations about software architecture. I visited all of them and also searched for this subject in other talks. It was interesting to hear the same concepts from more places and to put together a picture how software architecture looks like in the mind of the presenters of today’s conferences. Stefan Tilkov: Architecture War Stories . It was indeed about weird stories from real life. I wrote down two things: If something is sophisticated, probable you shouldn’t do it. And having many architects is wrong. Many people liked this talk very much but I’m not really interested in real stories. I’m rather interested in the causes behind the stories to be able to avoid situations which head to weird architecture. Luckily for me, other talks were more abstract. The title of Rachel Laycock’s talk contained the very fashionable word combination “Continuous Delivery” beside “Architecture” so I anticipated it will be great, and it was. Rachel came with the same m