[taeric]

To expand on the idea a bit here, I thought the point was like a huddle between plays for the players. Yes, there should be a communication line out of the huddle to get information and such, but by and large the idea is to empower the team to do things the way that they think it needs doing.

[timr]

Yes, exactly. Of course, lots of places do have intrusive management and turn standups into another form of supervision, but that's really not the point. It's sort of sad/ironic that GP was mocking the entire idea of a developer-led standup.

I'm a PM now and I run my team's standups, but even that may not be ideal depending on the perception of PMs within the organization. I think it's great when there's a tech lead or senior team member who wants to do the job -- they have the authority and experience to resolve issues quickly, but are still perceived as a collaborator, not a supervisor.

[gtirloni]

> I'm a PM now and I run my team's standups

You're management, you are not communicating laterally.

[timr]

PM has "manager" in the name, but it's not management. Literally everything a good PM does comes from credibility, competence and soft power. A PM's primary mandate is to make a product that benefits the user, but we don't make staffing decisions, do 1:1s, performance reviews or other "management" things. It's why the job is hard.

But I openly acknowledge that PM can be perceived as a tentacle of management, which is why I said it's not necessarily right to follow my current example.