[eyelidlessness]

> Are you totally anti process?

Not speaking for OP but agile, straight from the manifesto, itself is anti-process, at least in the sense where...

> If not, which process do you find more palatable

Is a cogent question.

Which process do /you/ find productive and helpful? What would you change? What would you emphasize? Process is a tool to serve you and your peers and your stakeholders. Not to pay fealty. Not to choose sides. It can be picked into pieces and rearranged. It can be recalled or reorganized whenever it’s unsuitable.

[BurningFrog]

The good agile teams I've been on had a LOT of process and were very disciplined.

But it was a process we decided on as a team, not something a consultant had read in a book.

[VinLucero]

Precisely. The best tool is the one people are bought into.

[eyelidlessness]

Exactly. Sorry for the ambiguity in my wording. I meant that the manifesto (like teams that do well adopting/reflecting it) is against proscribed process.

[riffraff]

> the manifesto, itself is anti-process

I don't think that's true, it's "people over processes", it doesn't imply a "no processes" stance, just that you shouldn't _force_ a process and you should adapt.

IMO that's what the agile manifesto is about: adapting.

[pracer]

But that's the opposite of my experience with agile and Scrum in the companies, where it is used as an excuse for non tech managers to enforce what they feel works better for them. In terms of control or, in some cases, micromanagement.