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

RE: [XP] Team Warping....

Expand Messages
  • Karl Scotland
    ... Not sure I was changing content - just trying to give another example of groups imposing rules. The point I was trying to make was that (in my example of
    Message 1 of 47 , Apr 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Wheeler
      > Sent: 02 April 2007 16:07
      > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [XP] Team Warping....
      >
      > > Why would a group impose upon it's individual members rules that
      > > impinge upon freedom to work alone (for example)?
      >
      > Don't change context. You can make anything sound rational by
      > comparing different contexts. Back to the original question:
      > Why is this something that is acceptable, limiting the words
      > people use in day to day conversation (excluding the obvious,
      > such as insulting, disrespectful, or derogatory language)?

      Not sure I was changing content - just trying to give another example of
      groups imposing rules. The point I was trying to make was that (in my
      example of "just") it was the group that was making the rule, and that it
      was for the benefit of the team - as often happens with pair programming.

      To answer you question, it was acceptable because it was a team working
      agreement, and it reduced the tendency to trivialise non-trivial work.

      Karl
    • Chris Wheeler
      ... That may have been so, but at the bottom of it, I read that it was one person using certain patterns of speech, and the rest of the team decided they d
      Message 47 of 47 , Apr 12, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > It was my impression (not particularly well-supported by any text)
        > that THE TEAM had gotten together and decided to implement the
        > Money Jar rule because THE TEAM had identified vague terms as
        > detrimental to THE TEAM's work.



        That may have been so, but at the bottom of it, I read that it was one
        person using certain patterns of speech, and the rest of the team decided
        they'd 'help' that person stop being so annoying/condescending/whatever by
        instituting a form of peer pressure.

        If the team steamrollered those objections, or sensitives had a
        > reasonable aversion to bringing them up, then you have a problem
        > with the way decisions are made and rules are instituted. Fix that.


        My experience being what it is, it seems to me that the 'sensitives' that
        would object to such pressure are the same 'sensitives' that wouldn't speak
        up, and if that is known ahead of time, then perhaps Money Jar policies are
        better displaced with 'I'll adapt to the way John says things'.

        Chris.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.