| I feel Scrum has evolved into something contradicting the original Agile practices. These were more of a template on how to develop, not a concrete recipe. Scrum then established a process where there was need for a family of processes, continuously evolving, ever changing. The very fact that "you absolutely have to have a specific ceremony (i.e.: Retro when no topics)" is a red flag which imho puts the cart before the horse. Why is there a "Scrum Master" anyway, if individuals are encouraged to interact and own the process? Suppose an individual wants to change the process, and reaches consensus within the team/community. Why would a Scrum Master / Manager even be able to veto any decision? Why is there a Sprint when SW development is actually a marathon? Uncle Bob talks about this in several of his Clean Methodology books. I don't think that Agile is dead [1], although it has been taken over by people eager to sell you a *cough* certification (Scrum or any other). It's not dead because its genius is that it's constantly evolving, and you can always interpret it differently since it's only a template. Scrum, on the other hand.. well.. For the future, I look forward to not putting an equal sign between Scrum and Agile, even though apparently Scrum is how you "do" Agile, according to the industry. [1] https://www.simplethread.com/agile-at-20-the-failed-rebellio... |