Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [XP] [Mod] Group Style

Expand Messages
  • Chris Dollin
    On Monday 31 January 2005 14:12, Ron Jeffries wrote: [My response rambles more than it should. Gloom.] ... It would be an honour if you did, Ron. ... Well ...
    Message 1 of 213 , Jan 31, 2005
      On Monday 31 January 2005 14:12, Ron Jeffries wrote:

      [My response rambles more than it should. Gloom.]

      > Around Monday, January 31, 2005, 8:35:00 AM, Chris Dollin wrote:
      > > On Saturday 29 January 2005 01:41, Kay Pentecost wrote:
      > >> Hi, Charles,
      > >>
      > >> > Remember I'm a pro-XP person
      > >>
      > >> So you say.
      > >
      > > And he says things that support that assertion, too.
      > >
      > >> > who's trying to keep it intellecutally respectable.
      > >>
      > >> intellectually respectable? So you want to change XP in what way?
      > >
      > > He doesn't. He wants to *keep* it intellectually responsible.
      > >
      > > (That's my reading.)
      > >
      > >> What about it is not intellectually respectable?
      > >>
      > >> What is *intellectually respectable* anyway?
      > >
      > > Things like: not ducking criticism, preferring clarity to
      > > obscurity, acknowledging weaknesses, admitting relevant
      > > biases.
      >
      > I'm not picking on you, Chris,;

      It would be an honour if you did, Ron.

      > its just that you gave me this
      > convenient list to work from. I take it, for this post's purpose at
      > least, as a list of things you've seen people be concerned about,
      > not your personal list of concerns.

      Well ... no. It's a list of some things that, for me, are a part of
      "intellectual respectability", that I wanted to offer Kay (in her
      role as asker-of-the-question) as examples. One reason for picking
      them is that they are, I think, *easy* examples - and ones that
      we-here do pretty well on.

      > The thing that troubles me about thoughts like this is that there
      > seems to me to be an underlying assumption that the reverse is going
      > on: that people duck criticism, prefer obscurity, don't acknowledge
      > weaknesses (their own? or in the method?), and hide their relevant
      > biases. That there are people here working to stop things from being
      > intellectually respectable.

      Bother. I meant no such implication; I apologise for any offence that
      I may have generated.

      > People here work really hard to express themselves,

      I believe that. I appreciate the results.

      > and there's something very disrespectful about publishing blanket
      > notions like "keeping things intellectually respectable",

      Urm. I don't believe that. What I believe is that it would be
      disrespectful to attribute intellectual disrespectability to someone
      on a whim, or without evidence, or as a stealth attack.

      > and associated concerns such as you list above.

      > The implication always seems to be that were
      > it not for whoever's then posting, respectability would be going to
      > hell.

      That's not, by preference, my reading. (Even if it were the intention
      of the writer.) "Intellectual respectability" - honesty of the mind -
      is, I believe, something we should all strive for and be responsible
      for. Because we're fallible - blind spots, bad days, weak in some skills,
      different for different people - sometimes we make mistakes; sometimes
      we *look* as if we've made a mistake; sometimes we misread something
      as a mistake. We should be willing to call people on their mistakes,
      and just as willing to be called on our own. I don't think it's
      disrespectful to do so, although it's possible to be disrespectful
      *while doing so*.

      Charles said:

      >>>> who's trying to keep it intellecutally respectable.

      ["it" is XP.]

      Let's not just take him at his word - let's recognise that we can
      *all* do this. Constructively. For example, let's be clear about
      what *has* been done, what *could* be done, and what *might* be done.

      Specifically, in the security discussion, it seems to me that while
      we have speculated about how an XP-style project with strong
      security *might* be done, we (I) can't point to one that *has*
      been done. But we did seem to have reached agreement - or possibly
      just mutaul silence - that strong security is *consistent* with
      doing things XP-style.

      > I'd rather see specific discussion of topics rather than blanket
      > assertions about other people's integrity or intelligence. We need
      > to speak to the issues, speak respectfully, speak as clearly as we
      > can.

      Concur.

      I wish I had had more time; I'm sure I could have managed a more
      concise message.

      --
      Chris "electric hedgehog" Dollin
    • Kent Beck
      Kay, When you say, I m not experiencing that the world is safe for programmers *yet*. it sounds to me like you are expecting the world to change. The
      Message 213 of 213 , Feb 8, 2005
        Kay,

        When you say, "I'm not experiencing that the world is safe for programmers
        *yet*." it sounds to me like you are expecting the world to change. The
        strategy of expecting or demanding the world to change in order for me to be
        okay doesn't work well for me. I am changing myself to perceive the world as
        safe, in the sense that what is around me doesn't threaten the core of my
        being. I might still get laid off, but my core can remain intact. I find
        this hard work, but rewarding.

        Kent Beck
        Three Rivers Institute

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Kay Pentecost [mailto:tranzpupy@...]
        Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:52 AM
        To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [XP] Scalibility issues in XP


        Hi, Kent,

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Kent Beck [mailto:kentb@...]
        > Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:19 PM
        > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [XP] Scalibility issues in XP
        >
        >
        > The whole quote was, "Making the world safe for programmers
        > and programmers
        > safe for the world." What I think now is that the world is
        > already safe and
        > what I need is to be able to recognize that and act appropriately.

        I'm glad the world is safe for you.

        I'm not experiencing that the world is safe for programmers yet. Nor are
        many of the other programmers I know and work with.

        I'm doing what I can towards that end, and it seems to be an uphill battle.


        Kay Pentecost




        To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...

        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

        ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.