[DanielBMarkham]

I think people make a mistake when they assume that the stand-up is about an exchange of data. It's not. It's a social construct. Technology development, especially in a team, is a social activity. We need to create social rituals for it to work at maximum efficiency.

The "bugs" he sees in the process, "synchronous, everyone needs to be in the room (or on the phone), and often after the meeting much of the content is lost" -- those are features.

People need to synchronize for social purposes. They need body language to help debug subtle performance issues. They need to have problems shoved in their face to either act on or forget.

That's all great stuff.

[anthonyb]

The other thing that a lot of people forget is that a stand up is supposed to be informal.

If you're leaving a paper trail that management can go back through (even in theory), then it will get sanitised, and people will try and make themselves look good. The further you get from reality, the more value your "stand ups" will lose.

There's a good reason for the "pigs and chickens" analogy.

[johnrob]

There is evidence that stand-up meetings are indeed a social construct: the meetings are functionally useless and the content is redundant (or at least should be redundant - nobody waits until the next morning to address a blocking issue). The only plausible justification must be social.

[Macsenour]

I say it over and over: This is not a status meeting, this is a communication meeting. What isn't a blocker for you, might be a blocker for someone else.

[reinhardt]

Thanks for putting into words and explaining so eloquently why stand-ups are the most unpleasant 5-10 minutes of my working day.

[anthonyb]

Thanks for not adding anything meaningful to the conversation.