Thoughts on the “Agiliagate Scandal”


Over the past few days there has been a Tweetstorm around Agilia Conference 2016 that is being held April 4-8 in Olomouc, Czech Republic.  I’ve decided to call this Agiliagate as every “scandal” these days seems to named in honour of the Watergate scandal that brought down Richard Nixon in the 1970s. The scandal started with a tweet from Samantha (Sam) Laing.  For those of you who don’t know her, Sam is an agile coach based out of Cape Town South Africa.  She has co-authored several excellent books and is a regular speaker at conferences worldwide.  I’ve known and respected her for several years now and was lucky enough to take a coaching workshop with her a few years ago at the Agile conference in the U.S.  Her tweet was:

wow really? 2 out of 27 speakers are woman? You couldn’t find any more?

Then Things Spun Out of Control

Sam made a perfectly valid observation.  Sadly, the initial response to Sam’s question was very, very unfortunate.  @agiliaconf responded with:

Why we shoud worry? We do not play feminist games here nor politics. Whoever pass our extensive screenening, he may come.

Yikes.  Just yikes.  Sam then maturely responded:

not a feminist game, just shocked at lack of diversity and now, lack of caring about diversity. It’s ok, just my opinion.

A very fair and level-headed response in my opinion.  Digging their hole even deeper, @agiliaconf responded with:

Yes, as I said, we are not political party. Go to EU in Bruxelles, they love to engineer diversity games. Our focus is different.

That response clearly didn’t help.  By this point the Tweetstorm was in full swing, although @agiliaconf chose to make matters even worse by tweeting:

You have enemies? Good. It means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.- Sir Winston Churchill – short rep to todays attack

@Agiliaconf’s first tweet could be chalked up as an unfortunate mistake.  Their second one was highly questionable, but the third one spectacularly stupid.  Dozens of people from all over the world, many of them important contributors in the agile community, were actively criticizing the conference organizers for the lack of gender diversity at the event.  Some people were also choosing to try to publicly shame several of the speakers, including myself, for being involved with the conference.  Some people tried to bully speakers to drop out of participating in the conference.  Others started going after the vendors who were sponsoring the conference.  Villains had been clearly identified and the forces of righteous indignation were out for blood.

Out of the Mess, Some Very Good Suggestions

The good news is that during all of this several good suggestions came out of the cacophony.  These suggestions included:

  1. Invite more female speakers.  Clearly a great idea for future events, but considering this conference was less than a week away it wasn’t a viable consideration to address the immediate problem.
  2. People should only speak at conferences that support diversity.  That’s also a great idea, and I’ll going start asking about this in the future, so lesson learned for me.
  3. Invite a woman to co-present at the conference.  This is also a great idea.  I’ve co-presented with many people in the past and that works very well and is a great way to shepherd people to become public speakers.
  4. Invite one or more women to be involved with the conference committee.  This is a great idea for future events.  Having been involved with many conference committees over the years my experience is that the more diverse your conference committee then generally the more diverse, and interesting, your speaker line-up will be.

Let’s Add Some Context

As we like to say at my company, context counts.  Had the people involved taken a few minutes to pause and consider the situation, I suspect they would have identified some important contextual factors:

  1. This happened over a low-fidelity communication medium.  Communication via electronic text, and in particularly the 140-character messages of Twitter, is problematic at best (see my article Agile Communication for some detailed thoughts on this topic).  It is very difficult to have meaningful conversations via Twitter, and it takes people to be a bit more careful in the way that they word things and thoughtful in how they react.  This clearly wasn’t happening.
  2. Organizing a conference is a lot of hard, stressful work.  It’s particularly stressful in the days leading up the the conference, which is the period when all of this happened.  @Agiliaconf was very likely dealing with a fair bit of stress at the time that Sam’s tweet came in.  Some of the people critical of @Agiliaconf may not have much, if any experience, with how conferences are run so I can see them being unaware of this.  However, several of the detractors are regular conference speakers and should have been a lot more empathetic.
  3. There are cultural differences.  Aguarra, the organization running the conference, is based in the Czech Republic.  The Czechs have their own unique culture, just like the Canadians do, the Brits, the Germans, the South Africans, and so on.  There are some great similarities between all of these cultures, but important nuances too.  When people from different cultures are interacting with one another it often requires a bit more patience and latitude.

The point is that instead of responding with a knee-jerk reaction I decided to act in a respectful manner and contact the Agilia folks and see what they had to say for themselves.

Agilia’s Side of the Story

I had a email conversation with Michal, one of the two organizers of event.  Here’s a few things that I learned in the conversation:

  1. Their native language isn’t English.  In hindsight this is clear given the wording of some of their tweets.  It’s hard enough to have a conversation on Twitter, but doing so in a language that isn’t your first one is very difficult.
  2. They’re fairly new to Twitter.  Since joining Twitter they’ve sent less than 250 tweets, many of which are focused on advertising presentations at conferences.  As you can see from their tweets they perceived Sam’s initial tweet as an attack coming from a complete stranger, and with just a bit of empathy I think it’s pretty easy to see how this would be the case.  Furthermore, they honestly thought that their first response was sarcastic and would be taken as such.  I explained that sarcasm is an incredibly bad idea on Twitter at the best of times, and that they really needed to avoid it in the future.
  3. Half of the conference organizers are female.  Granted, there are only two conference organizers, a man and a woman.  As you can see from the link, this information is fairly easy to discover yet none of their critics bothered to look into this (or if they did they certainly didn’t tweet about it).
  4. The critics are from outside of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE).  The conference organizers did some analysis of where the critical tweets were coming from, and for the most part it was from outside of the CEE. This is a reflection of my earlier point about cultural differences between the people involved.  When this happens everyone needs to be more patient and understanding.
  5. The critics didn’t bother to reach out to the Agilia organizers.  Because I didn’t know what was going on behind the scenes, I asked if any of the critics had bothered to reach out to the Agilia organizers to get their side of the story.  Here was the response: “From speakers, only Ben Linders and Olli Pietikainen. From people, who posted some articles about this situation, nobody. From most visible twitter screamers such as [NAMES WITHHELD BY ME] nobody. From other twitter people – nobody.”  Given that the agile community preaches values such as respect, communication, and collaboration many of our more prominent people have clearly failed to fulfill these ideals in the “AgiliaGate” situation.  I am embarrassed for us.
  6. Their responses reflect their culture.  When I pointed out to them that their responses to Sam were inappropriate, something that many others pointed out via Twitter, here was their response: “I will appreciate, if I could get more detailed info of what has happened as seen from other side. In our cultural environment, there is general dissagreement in society about attempts to impose quotas on anything, including number of women or minorities or anything.  Asking for it might be interpreted as an assalt, which I did.”  Yes, many of us may not agree with that but this is the cultural environment in which the Agilia conference is operating.  Asked about what they were thinking with their second tweet, they responded “I responded with lite sarcasm, true, that we praise meritocracy here.  In second tweet the my message was – go to elsewhere, we do not want you here. I have reffered to Bruxelles, because this place is in CEE region seen as source of such ideas on regulation.”  OK, that message certainly didn’t come across at all but it does reflect the cultural environment that the organizers exist in.
  7. There’s a surprising amount of support for the Agilia organizers.  You only need to look at @Agiliaconf’s Twitter feed to see this.  A lot of this support is coming from people in the CEE (whom the conference is targeted at) and in some cases even coming from…. you guessed it… women.  The point is that this gender diversity concern, and it is an important concern, is coming from outsiders who have a different cultural context than that of the target audience of the conference.  Once again, we’re seeing cultural differences get in the way of mutual understanding.
  8. Acceptance of talk proposals from women was 100%.  One of the things that I asked the conference organizers was to provide some stats around their proposal process.  They received one talk proposal from a woman for this event and they accepted it.  Furthermore they reached out to another lady to give a talk at the conference.  Apparently she had been scheduled at a previous event but had to drop out due to personal reasons, so for this event they reached out to her again and invited her to speak at the Olomouc conference.

So, by choosing to have more respectful interactions with the conference organizers I easily discovered that they aren’t the evil, misogynistic bastards that some people want to portray them to be.  They are clearly guilty of having poor Twitter skills,  imperfect English, and a culture that is different from that of their critics.  I’m not sure that we should vilify them for that.  With a bit of investigation I discovered that they have a gender diverse conference committee, had not only accepted all of the proposals from women but had gone out of their way to invite another female speaker.  Could they have invited more women?  You bet.

We Need to Do Better

The organizer’s of the Agilia conference certainly made some serious mistakes.  But so did many of the people criticizing them.  Yes, the Agilia people reacted poorly, but that didn’t mean we needed to respond in kind by trying to publicly shame or in some cases bully anyone involved with the conference.

If I may be so bold, here are a few suggestions to consider in the future:

  1. Let’s strive for respectful communication over indignant posing.
  2. When we see questionable behaviour, let’s investigate first so that we can avoid jumping to conclusions.
  3. Contact people privately to discuss and understand the situation before attacking them in public (particularly when you might not understand the full picture).
  4. Just because others have jumped on a bandwagon, that doesn’t mean that you need to do so too.  Or, at least if you do, make sure you understand what’s actually going on first.
  5. If you honestly believe that future Agilia conferences could do with a more diverse group of speakers, then take the opportunity to submit a proposal or point someone whom you think would be a great speaker to this link.
  6. When someone is behaving in a way that offends you, for whatever reason, try to see it from their point of view first.  Yes, that means you’ll likely need to have a conversation with them rather than simply join the stone-throwing crowd.

In short, if you believe it’s appropriate to vilify someone, then at least have the integrity to make sure that they’re actually a villain before doing so.



Have any Question or Comment?

13 comments on “Thoughts on the “Agiliagate Scandal”

Glen Little

This took a lot of courage to write since you walk tall in those circles. Just want you to know that I’m proud to call you friend.


Thanks. My primary concern is for the people running the conference. It’s a heck of a lot of work running a conference, and then at the last minute this stuff happens. I just hope that the people who were attacking them a few days ago do what they can to put things right.

Hazira B

Great analysis and recommendation , I was involved in organizing some very large technical Symposiums and Conferences for IBM and I understand the complexity , collaboration and coordination is required to synchronize the whole event.


Thanks. It’s nice to hear the other side of what happened. I do see how my first tweet was a bit harsh, rude and judgemental. The tweet storm that ensued was not my intention 🙁
I’m glad that the topic got attention, though I’m sad at it was at the conferences expense.


if we wish to be change agents – we must work within the context of the culture and the environment within which we find ourselves. Imagine trying to hold such a conference in Saudi Arabia where the last conference on woman’s rights was only attended by – wait for it – (only) men. Still societies do change and we should work together to bring about positive change without, as you noted, vilifying those who hold different views than we do and indeed live in very different cultures.


Well researched and well put Scott.

Bring on great and deep speakers. We have too few in Agile and Lean. No matter who they be.

Putting pressure on speakers like me for this told us a lot about the people doing it.

Tolerance and respect. Please.


Excellent and very professional summary – I really like it because it’s extremely sensitive when it comes description of involved parties and their perspectives.
However, I am sorry, but from my view angle (and I know Michal personally) the problem is very little connected to culture – it’s more connected to him personally. As I know him he is quite sensitive when it comes to his baby and quite insensitive when it comes to PR 😉
I am from Prague, doing business intelligence stuff all around Europe. We the CEE people are more or less the same as you guys, I can really say 😉 Granted.
I say this because I feel the “culture excuse” is on one hand side correct (and makes sense here), but on the other it’s quite unfair generalization. Unfair to all the other CEE people who would never reacted the way Michal did. After reading this I feel like a man from not developed area somewhere on the East, where people are not yet grown enough to care much about women and speak politely. Which is surely not the target of the great article, anyway I just wanna say loud – far from it!
I would just say that Michal did quite a serious PR mistake here, he has to learn something, and he may become a better person eventually … (nothing more, nothing less).
So let me say – do not have the patience with impoliteness from CEE, we deserve the same reactions as any other man or woman on the planet … (or at least in Europe 🙂


Tomas, thank you very much. Yes, my thoughts about cultural differences may not be completely fair. I am in the Czech Republic for the first time this week and will see for myself how things are here, or more specifically at least at this conference.

Just about to take a few hours to enjoy Prague. 😉


Agree with Tomas fully. I’m also from CEE originally and it is not a culture thing.

Roger James

Scott, good to read your considered approach.
I think this proves yet again that Twitter is not only totally unsuited to any serious discussion but by extension any discussion about anything serious.
Frankly, I have never understood why intelligent people use Twitter at all.
If that sounds elitist, I’m sorry but, I make no apologies.

Tracey S. Rosenberg

I don’t follow what your ‘half the conference organizers are female’ point is meant to prove. Yes, it’s easy to discover; in fact, I saw it. I didn’t mention it in my own tweets because it’s irrelevant to the debate, and I assume that’s why no one else did either. The issue wasn’t how many women are involved in organizing this conference, but rather how many women are speaking at it. I saw a photo of a female chef on their Twitter feed today, because she is apparently cooking for the conference; that isn’t useful to the discussion, either. The ‘here’s how we screen’ post that was pointed to didn’t mention whether both conference organizers were equally responsible for selecting speakers, which is the only potentially relevant point I can think of.

On the other hand, men in positions of power, and women in support roles – such as, say, what the titles of ‘conference chair’ and ‘conference manager’ would indicate – might certainly be relevant to the blatant lack of diversity, so perhaps you’re correct that those of us commenting should have pointed it out.

Maybe there was denunciation and stone-throwing; I guess I missed that. I saw people bending over backwards to offer them suggestions to help them expand their diversity without ‘quotas’ or lack of quality – even *after* they boasted that no one had responded to the tweet they had posted ten hours earlier, as if somehow that proved their point. I hope to receive a response to my own polite, rational suggestions once the conference has wound up and the organizers have had a chance to reflect.

Personally, I wouldn’t use ‘it’s a different culture’ as a defence for a conference’s behavior (especially one that actively attempts to promote themselves as international). Surely this conference should be judged on the same criteria as any other conference, rather than being given special treatment and having excuses made for its behavior. After all, we should choose the best conference regardless of its culture. But I suppose we have different opinions about that.


Tracey, good points. Here are some of my thoughts:
1. The reason why I point out that there’s a 50/50 split on the organizer side of things is because some people thought that part of the problem was an all-male conference committee. So I choose to address that misunderstanding.
2. I didn’t see the photo that you talk about. The conference organizers do seem to be tone deaf when it comes to marketing and perception issues.
3. You couldn’t know about this, I hope, but several of the speakers that I met here at the conference told me how they were contacted by people who tried to convince them to not be involved in the conference. Sometimes this happened publicly, which happened with me and two other keynote speakers (at least), and sometimes privately. In some cases this was even done by people who were complete strangers to the speakers. Only one speaker dropped out, although I don’t know if it was because of the diversity issue or for other reasons.
4. I hope that the conference folks choose to improve in the future and adopt many of the good suggestions that they’ve gotten. Time will tell.
5. Perhaps we should be less judgemental and try to be more collaborative. Far too many people jumped on the bandwagon and choose to attack the people organizing this conference. Just because someone behaves poorly doesn’t mean that we should behave poorly (albeit in a different way) ourselves. We can be better than that.

Paulo Furtado

Sad is a world that needs diversity as a mandatory thing to grant equality to people. Diversity should be natural. Naturally, we should have an event with 100% women, or a 100% men. Or half/half. By fighting for diversity, we assume that the humankind doesn’t have the simple power to be natural. Actually, we assume that, naturally, we are biases people (a very weird way to start to talk about “trust in people”, right?). My main point about diversity is that it makes people very obsessed for it, or against it. Hense (and maybe this is a very naive thought), on the name of diversity, we are putting merits, culture, personalities and the sense of justice in a second layer of priority. And more… we forget that diversity is also accept the fact that exists people that don’t agree with it as a mandatory thing. By the end, diversity is a mandatory thing because we simply don’t trust in people. We don’t trust that people can be naturally diverse.


Leave a Reply to Tracey S. Rosenberg Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *