The first being those who are debating tradeoffs in decisions. For example is it better to adhere to a strict iteration timeframe and reject or revert issues that would not be completed within the iteration, or is it better to identify the highest priority items and allow the iteration to extend (for this item only) it’s time to accommodate the priority? There are tradeoffs to either choice, and you may find it desirable to do both at different times.

The second type of zealotry follows the definition ‘excessive intolerance of opposing views’. In the case where you decided iterations are one month, any deviation from a one month timeframe means you are not agile, and should start over. As far as I am concerned this strict interpretation doesn’t fit an adapting process like Agile. It’s this second type of zealotry that creates problems, because it is unforgiving to those who are entering into Agile as a novice. It creates barriers and isolates ideas. To me, it’s this type of Zealotry that is completely against adaptation, and rejects incremental improvements which is fundamental to concepts like CI, Agile and Lean Development.

Agile has a lot to teach, and is still being adapted and defined. The banging on the desks by Zealots is all about the practical aspects of Agile not some theoretical set of processes. I can’t think of any article that doesn’t list the benefits of what they are advocating, but I see a lot of projects not adopting, adapting and changing. Most of those teams that don’t change think they are becoming more agile when they aren’t.

But its OK, because if you don’t change someone else will. When the guys that do it eat your lunch you won’t even know what hit you. So good luck thinking its all good, because it makes their life a lot easier.