[gutnor]

Standing Up is a crutch to keep meeting short.

If you can keep the meeting short and effective with everybody sitting why you make people stand up ? It is not agile to apply practices out of principle, you apply them with a result in mind, and if the result can be achieved in a more efficient manner you just do it that way.

For example, my team has never suffered from anchoring. We stopped playing with the voting cards once it became clear the result we got with or without them were the same, just faster without the cards. We continued to stand up because that meant people going away from distractions but not requiring a trip to a meeting room.

[matthewmacleod]

This, I think, is what people so often miss when they are talking about agile.

It's not a magic set of hard-and-fast rules that should be applied to every situation regardless of how they fit. If you feel you can do without some parts of the canonical process, then drop them. If you feel you'd benefit from some different approaches, you can add them.

Standups are no different, and if your team doesn't need them, or has an alternative that works better for you, then go for it!

[eropple]

This is, however, used as a dodge by Agile proponents (okay, more specifically Scrum proponents, but the other "Agile" options have mostly receded) to avoid answering to the significant criticisms of the methodologies involved. "Oh, you changed it because we said it was flexible and could be changed? Now you're doing it wrong, the methodology(tm) is fine."

[MCRed]

I've never seen it work. The people whose only purpose in the organization is to create meetings and waste other people's time always seem to be able to stand and drone on about irrelevancies for 45 minutes without breaking a sweat.

I've taken the policy that I a reserve the right to sit down at any time. If I'm sitting, you're bullshitting.