I think each team should work the way they feel comfortable and avoid those "unified ceremonies". If someone needs an input they can ask for it when needed. Or organize a meeting if it really required. Otherwise just let workers work and do not waste their time with useless talk. Leader can always monitor overall progress.
I liked the idea (I think it was from Semler's book, but may also be from 37signals), that meetings are always optional. If you have organised a meeting and nobody came, it just means that no one saw any value in it.
If you have a leader. Standups were popularized alongside Agile, which is a framework for having all members of the team take on an equal leadership role. The idea of having standups under Agile was to provide a point for the "leaders" to coordinate themselves. If you have a designated leader, they are indeed dubious (and may also be dubious under Agile, but you cannot lean on a leader in that case, at least).
Dubious leader is not the leader. And having a team without a leader is not very good idea. If team is 2 people and both are equally qualify let them sort it between themselves.
> And having a team without a leader is not very good idea.
I mean, I'm not sure anyone seriously claims that Agile is actually a good idea. It may look like a nice idea on paper, not having a leader to get in the way of the people who know what they are doing, but not even the Agile Manifesto signatories were able to make it work in the real world when they worked together.
