Thoughts on Agile Manifesto 2.1

The agile manifesto captured a new dynamic at a pivotal moment in the industry. So what do you think about the idea of having a 2.1 version at all?

I think it is natural that ideas evolve otherwise they become outdated.

Is trying to revise the Agile Manifesto, which leveraged key thought leadership skills at a critical moment in the industry's history, a good way to develop ideas?

Yes, if revision makes it better. Compliance with Agile Manifesto is not mandatory, so if a revised version is not good for your purposes you can stick to the original one. A peer review is a part of empirical process, so it is good to make a revision just start a discussion.

Personally, I think the first statement is better in revised version:

- Teamwork & responsibility over Individuals and Interaction.

The second one is disputable. Business value sounds vague to me.

So, what are your thoughts about revised statements?

Sorry, but it doesn't look like a new version of Agile. Because Agile Manifest exists in the way it is, people started thinking "what else I can do for this world?" Version 2.0, 2.1, etc. is not something new -- the statements listed are based on the original route and direction. The vector is the same, and it's up to every practitioner how far they want to go with that. The new statements should not replace anything (it would assume the original are wrong), however it's ok to fulfill the gaps which may appear in particular places, particular practices, projects, etc. That's why they're so many people are talking about it, writing article, articulating particular practices that were/will be effective for particular cases.
So, to make the long story short -- I don't believe the particular 2.1 is a real substitution to Agile (the one we all know).

What issue is the 2.1 movement trying to solve?

Is there confusion over what the Agile Manifesto states? Why do some believe that the 4 Agile values are "outdated"?

I think it is a bit shortsighted to dismiss the significant thought and effort it took to develop the original Agile Manifesto. I also fail to see any true improvements with the statements made in the Agile Manifesto 2.1.

One proposed change really stands out to me as ill-advised: "Partnership elaboration over Customer collaboration. "

Customer Collaboration implies partnership, discussion, and teamwork with the entity that truly matters in any business - the end customer.

"Partnership Elaboration". Partnership with who? Our business "partners"? Internal? External? Talk about casting a wide net! And why is elaboration preferred to collaboration? Elaboration means to develop something carefully, minutely, and it implies excessive detail. Ugh...

To me, this just seems to be a wasteful exercise. As proof, I will never get back the time it took for me to enter this reply... ;-)

Are we just discussing "change, why the hell?" instead of just disproving/confirming the actual proposals on an Agile-relate forum (which hasn't been updated since 1998 apparently)?! I need a coffee :D

Well, first of all Agile Manifesto is not a Holy Scripture, so it can be revised and new statements may replace everything in it IF they deemed better than first version. Lets leave dogmatism to religions.

Second, it is ok to look back and think about its relevance to what we know today. This is how science progresses constantly revising its theories towards new knowledge. This is empiricism. Inspection and adaptation.

Third, I didn't said a new version was a substitution to the original. I have only asked if the new statements made it better or worse for Scrum practices.

This is empiricism. Inspection and adaptation.

I have only asked if the new statements made it better or worse for Scrum practices.

Agree with the benefits of Empiricism; however, I have yet to see it applied here. If the current Agile Manifesto is not working, what are the reasons why? What are we trying to make better here?

What I have read here is an attempt to rewrite the four Agile Manifesto statements, without any real explanation on why it needs to be re-written (outside of a blanket statement that "change is good").

This in my mind is akin to promoting a solution (Agile Manifesto 2.1) without really defining the problem or issue. And I have already stated in a previous post that one of the proposed changes is quite poor in comparison to the original.

Guys, today is 2018. Has 2.1 become alive?

why don't i see "Agile Manifesto 2.1" on https://agilemanifesto.org/ ? Who published it?

Let us have one truth of source for the Agile manifesto. For example its Scrum.org for scrum that holds and maintains the Scrum Guide and its updates done after extensive discussions, feedback from the community, vetted and approved by committee.

Similarly I look at agilemanifesto.org for agile manifesto principles and rules. Am I missing a FORMAL update (I did not notice any update) done after extensive discussions, feedback from the community that is vetted and approved by a committee? If this is not the case please do not dilute the discussion with rogue articles that did not evolve as part of a bigger community discussion and feedback.

Let us have some cadence and discipline in streamlining and putting the ideas to discussion before assuming these concepts as well established. So my answer to your below question

what are your thoughts on Agile Manifesto 2.1 statements?

is...

I would rather not waste for any version that's not formally done after extensive discussions, feedback from the community, vetted and approved by committee.

Thanks you.

I agree with this statement from @Timothy

Agree with the benefits of Empiricism; however, I have yet to see it applied here. If the current Agile Manifesto is not working, what are the reasons why? What are we trying to make better here?

@Anton stated

This is how science progresses constantly revising its theories towards new knowledge.

and he is correct.  But they only revise theories when there is evidence to support the change.  I have yet to see anything in any of the posting I have seen online that support/prove there is a problem with the original.

What I feel the 2.1 movement is really trying to do is establish a new manifesto which is entirely fine.  But as with anything that is founded based on a manifesto, when the manifesto changes, the original group also changes.  Radical thought? Sure but a lot of manifesto based groups are somewhat "radical" just as the original signatories were called.  So why not call it something other than Agile Manifesto 2.1?  In fact, call it Agile Manifesto.  Because in reality, the original was "Manifesto for Agile Software Development".  The 2.1 movement can create something that is targeted at larger than software development and the signatories can make a name for themselves in doing so.