Surprised to see this post so far up on HN.
Not only is Agile still very valuable with lots of good lessons to teach us - this guy's complaints are technically wrong - his examples pertain to the use of the word as a verb or an adjective - not as a noun. And, to be fair, in the context of software, turning Agile into a verb is perfectly fair.
"Agile Master Alliance" - Adjective - it modifies "Master"
"How to Agile" - Verb.
"Agile Certificate" - Adjective. You could argue that it is a nominalization, but that is truly splitting hairs.
Let's put it another way: if this guy doesn't know what a [gerund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund) is, or what [nominalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization) is, that is not Agile's problem.
So, in the end, what is this guy's point, other than "get off my lawn"?
Edit/update:
Magdoub's point is this:
>You don’t need velocity, daily stand ups, points estimations, spikes, scrum masters to deliver high quality software. You just need good people.
That is so catastrophically false that I don't even know where to start. I mean, really sanity-blasting. Sure, maybe cargo-cult adherence to agile tenets is not going to help anyone, but throwing management methodology out the window and hoping that "good people" just somehow summon good software into being is comically naive.
Not only is Agile still very valuable with lots of good lessons to teach us - this guy's complaints are technically wrong - his examples pertain to the use of the word as a verb or an adjective - not as a noun. And, to be fair, in the context of software, turning Agile into a verb is perfectly fair.
"Agile Master Alliance" - Adjective - it modifies "Master"
"How to Agile" - Verb.
"Agile Certificate" - Adjective. You could argue that it is a nominalization, but that is truly splitting hairs.
Let's put it another way: if this guy doesn't know what a [gerund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund) is, or what [nominalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalization) is, that is not Agile's problem.
So, in the end, what is this guy's point, other than "get off my lawn"?
Edit/update:
Magdoub's point is this:
>You don’t need velocity, daily stand ups, points estimations, spikes, scrum masters to deliver high quality software. You just need good people.
That is so catastrophically false that I don't even know where to start. I mean, really sanity-blasting. Sure, maybe cargo-cult adherence to agile tenets is not going to help anyone, but throwing management methodology out the window and hoping that "good people" just somehow summon good software into being is comically naive.