[woodrowbarlow]

do you like the asynchronous nature?

for me, the most valuable part of planning poker is when we see one vote that's way out of line with the rest, and that person explains their thinking, and some important discussion can take place. with asynchronous voting, i would imagine you'd get a fair bit of "oh, yeah, to be honest i don't remember why i gave that one an XL".

to be honest, i don't even see the point of keeping votes anonymous. if there's enough judgement in the room that people are ashamed to honestly say how difficult a task would be for them, i think that's a larger problem.

[alistairSH]

i don't even see the point of keeping votes anonymous

Judgement is potentially a problem.

But, beyond that, seeing votes could lead more timid team members to simply wait for the tech lead (or a boisterous team member) to vote and follow along.

[woodrowbarlow]

oh, we do "put the card face down in front of you and we all turn them over at once".

[ozim]

I remember worst estimations when you have 7-8 people in the room and then everyone has "something to say" then it takes instead of 1 hour maybe 2.

With async 5 of those people can work on something else when 2 or 3 have questions or ideas about the story.

[woodrowbarlow]

that's a problem in every part of the agile framework, but the mitigation should be the scrum master and enforced timeboxes for agile meetings. the scrum master must be assertive enough to step in and table all discussion at a certain point.

[MiquelLHC]

It is not the first time we get this kind of idea, maybe we will need to explore it a bit more. thanks for the idea