[MartinCron]

The article closes with this idea:

@sbellware we should bury agile, mourn the dead, and get on with establishing something that is designed to be resistant to being so easily undermined

https://twitter.com/sbellware/status/443397344436817920

Which makes me wonder, is it even possible to create a "thing" (idea, movement, methodology, system, whatever) that is resistant to being undermined? I don't think so. It seems like a natural cost to attaching a name to something.

This is why I try not to talk about "Agile" these days, but rather just to try to discuss the specific principles that have proven valuable for me.

[wpietri]

The one big mistake I think the Agile people made is not trademarking the term Agile and then enforcing some standards. There was discussion early on, but for some reason it never happened. For Agile it would have been hard, because Agile isn't a methodology on its own; it's an umbrella for a bunch.

Enforcing standards doesn't make it proof against being undermined, but it does make it harder. There's still a tradeoff between being popular and being great that's hard to resolve. Especially since a popular, non-great thing is more likely to get lots of money and attention.

[MartinCron]

That's an interesting idea, but my first instinct is that the cynical developer response to "Agile(tm)" would be even more harsh than to just "Agile".