Historically in Westminster systems that hasn't actually been that unusual when the majority party has lost as much public trust as this one seems to have. At a certain point, presiding over an unpopular rump can be more damaging in the long term than letting go and regrouping.
That doesn't seem to be the way current conservative parties operate though.
I mean whether you clump them or not they're still time taken out of a very short period. I wouldn't (and haven't) minded so much with longer sprints, but 2 weeks minus planning/retro minus "one person takes a Friday off and another person is out one of the weeks" always leaves me feeling cramped.
I think the best structure I ever had was 3wk "actual work" sprints and 1wk to address tech-debt and do planning.
> To the contrary -- in between each sprint, there's a review, a retrospective
"in between" is overstating things a bit. The current norm seems to be two week sprints and all these things are done at the beginning and end of them. To be honest, I personally do feel like this gives the feeling of 'sprinting' because it usually means at least 2-3 days of the sprint are 'wasted' on meetings and that counts for a lot when it's 2/10 or 3/10.
And a lot of the terminology around this kind of process are geared to give you a sense of urgency. Right back to "Extreme Programming".
In places where medallion or similar systems were in place, most of the protesters tended to be medallion owners. Who may or may not themselves be drivers, but even if they were were probably still deriving significant income from non-owner drivers renting their cars and medallions.
Oh woops we're back where we started.