I'm on the fence about this. In our org, we have all kinds of meetings. From the perfect highly efficient and successful meetings, to ones where either the results were hard to disseminate and transport because certain viewpoints were missing or ones where half of the participants were there needlessly.
It's a tough task to keep the quality level of meetings high, regardless of scenario. I've been in too many one on ones where we just enjoyed each others company a bit too much and it veered off from relevant stuff to just chat and the goals of the one-on-one besides establishing rapport were not achieved.
It's also trying in a interdisciplinary scrum team. We "sacrifice" a full day of our 6-8 person teams every two weeks and it's a mixed bag if review, retro and planning will be efficient and successful or boring and feeling wasteful. Sometimes planning has lots of time spent where backend devs discuss difficulties that are irrelevant to Frontend, sometimes sometimes a Frontend Dev offers a more elegant solution and vice versa.
Personally I've accepted that it's something where one always has to walk the line. There's no easy fix or guideline that always works and it's best to become comfortable with that and try to do best without following a dogma.
Some of those things are important, but shouldn’t take a day. Any guess is the meeting organizers aren’t preparing well enough, and aren’t keeping the meeting on track.
Pointing stories should never take more than an hour for example. There is little benefit to tedious discussion because engineering estimates aren’t that accurate anyways. You need to weight, not measure, so business can understand relative costs.
The whole point of Agile is to deliver high velocity to the customers highest priorities, with frequent releases and course adjustments. If you spend 10% of your teams velocity on standing ceremonies, there should be a really compelling reason.
It's a tough task to keep the quality level of meetings high, regardless of scenario. I've been in too many one on ones where we just enjoyed each others company a bit too much and it veered off from relevant stuff to just chat and the goals of the one-on-one besides establishing rapport were not achieved.
It's also trying in a interdisciplinary scrum team. We "sacrifice" a full day of our 6-8 person teams every two weeks and it's a mixed bag if review, retro and planning will be efficient and successful or boring and feeling wasteful. Sometimes planning has lots of time spent where backend devs discuss difficulties that are irrelevant to Frontend, sometimes sometimes a Frontend Dev offers a more elegant solution and vice versa.
Personally I've accepted that it's something where one always has to walk the line. There's no easy fix or guideline that always works and it's best to become comfortable with that and try to do best without following a dogma.