The level of dogma in Agile is really irrelevant to me. The fact is that it exists. Some people have experienced it quite a bit and have been turned off of Agile because of it. Others, like yourself, apparently haven’t experienced it and that’s great. I’m not really interested in a debate about how much dogma there is in Agile. I only know that there is enough to be a problem, to create confusion and to turn people off of Agile. Pliant has arisen solely due to the fact that it is extremely hard to discuss “Agile” vs “agile”. I’d much rather keep using “agile” but I don’t want people to confuse me with the dogmatic Agile practices that have arisen. I think about my context, learn about techniques and apply them where I think they will work. And if they don’t work, I try again. I evolve my software development practice as I go. This is significantly different from blindly implementing 12 techniques and sticking to them come hell or high water. And that is why I like the word pliant (or any word other than agile, for that matter).

Everyone’s experiences are different. I’ve talked to people who have literally been laughed at for questioning XP practices. This is horribly unprofessional and I’m not interested in associating with anyone who does this sort of thing. I’ve heard of more people claiming Agile to be a silver bullet than those saying YMMV. Maybe I’m just hanging around in the bad part of “Agile” town, I don’t know. The point is that enough people have had enough problems with “Agile” that something different was needed and that is what we’ve come up with.

While I have seen a dangerous amount of dogma creep into the Agile community, it is by no means overwhelming, and I think the extent of it has been exagerated. (and a lot of it is backlash against the first edition of XP Explained. Kent Beck changed his tone in the second edition of that book, and no longer takes such a dogmatic position w.r.t XP practices, based on experience and feedback from the community. If not for that I would never have become a proponent of XP.)

I also think it is/was inevitable as agile becomes more mainstream. And dare I say it, to some extent it is a perception problem… no one in the Agile community that I know is preaching XP/Scrum/whatever as a silver bullet; they just aren’t shouting that it isn’t a silver bullet either. (As Ron Jeffries says, XP isn’t a silver bullet, just the most successful way he’s personally found to deliver quality software. He’s very vocal in saying YYMV.) I’m not claiming that no one is calling Agile a silver bullet; I’m just saying that it is not a widely-held belief in the Agile community that I’ve experienced.

I see the dogma that has crept into ‘Agile’ as a problem, but I don’t think it is very helpful to frame it as a conflict, or to lump everyone in the Agile community together with the most dogmatic elements of the community. It turns into preaching to the choir, and even alienating people who to some extent agree with you.

Surely there is a more effective way to convince the dogmatists in the Agile camp to change thier ways. I prefer to stay engaged in the community, and question dogma in a venue that will engage others, rather than alienate them. It just seems easier to me to reclaim (small-a) agile rather than give it up and come up with a new term that will probably have the same fate in 5 years. :/

Cheers.