[djKianoosh]

wow this would suck in a 20 person standup

[matthewmacleod]

Literally everything would suck in a 20 person standup.

[djKianoosh]

can confirm

[TomMarius]

Why would you have 20 person standups?

[djKianoosh]

because government project? although I imagine this happens in non-gov settings too, this is just my experience.

Here's the reason: managers are so spread thin that they don't want to be in 5-10 standups all morning, so they combine around organizational structures rather than product(s)/deliverable(s). Another case of the software delivery matching org structure...

[TomMarius]

Of course the next question in line is "why is a manager involved in the standup?"

> because government project? although I imagine this happens in non-gov settings too, this is just my experience.

Why not split into smaller work groups? What's the advantage of 20 person teams?

[djKianoosh]

organically this is what happens to actually get things done. but mind you, these small work groups are successful despite the large standups. life finds a way...

[dragonwriter]

Well, yes, a 20 person standup is a little more than twice the maximum size conventional wisdom holds is appropriate, so it is going to suck to start with and much advice for normal 5-9 person stand-ups will be counterproductive and make it worse.

[bmcfeeley]

I know we tend to have little control over this as ICs, but I think the party line here is that 20 is too many people to effectively make use of most agile/scrum ceremonies. Do you actually need to know all 19 other persons’ updates?

[djKianoosh]

Individuals don't, but the managers, who may be well meaning, feel the need to.