Also one of the "managers" (that's his title), manages no one.
He's a scrum master of sorts, who goes around interrupting people programming to remind them to move their tasks to "in progress" or to "closed". I assume so our burndown chart moves down. I've been tempted to replace this guy with a script.
I'm tempted to replace developers who can't be bothered to help the rest of the team out by putting in the tiny amount of effort required to keep everyone up to date with what's happening with the current tasks. Really, it's five minutes out of your day which makes everyone happy because they know that tasks aren't stuck or forgotten about and doesn't require you to interrupt your flow.
I literally work in a team of 2, that also has a PM. We've been parachuted in another team's standup.
We all know what the other member of the team works on, so the standup is clearly not for us but for a minute update to all the managers who are sitting in on several "standups" in a row.
If you read my comments, it's not really the standup itself that I complain about. It's disguised micro management with an Agile shell.
Since teams are supposed to be self organized and the process itself should be agile, you could ask the member of the team to comment on the process and if they think the standup help them.
I think that you and evilolive can be each experiencing your respective problems. At times I've been the developer who has failed to update tasks for days/weeks. I've also been pressed for updates 5-6 times in a day by different managers and "managers". Both problems are fixed by all parties respecting others as people and doing their jobs correctly.
The version control hoster that we use has an integrated ticketing/bug tracking solution, which lets you easily reference tickets in your commits to do this sort of task updating.
We don't make huge use of it, since we've only got about four developers, so communication is pretty easy, but it can be helpful.
Ours does too. I find that it is nice to have the additional information when the commit message is a bit general. Although this is a problem with the message itself.
It also can be helpful months later when needing a reminder why something was changed based on an assumed unimportant detail at the time.
Yeah, it's fine if you have external people listening in. If there's five people at your standup though, it means they probably don't have anything better to do (like idk, manage).
Only if they speak