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

Re: [XP] XP and Scrum

Expand Messages
  • Gary Brown
    ... From: Ron Jeffries To: Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:27 PM Subject: Re: [XP] XP and
    Message 1 of 138 , May 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@...>
      To: <extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 6:27 PM
      Subject: Re: [XP] XP and Scrum


      > Hello, Gary. On Friday, May 2, 2008, at 6:26:46 PM, you wrote:
      >
      >>> I'd have to ask your people to be sure, but based on what you've
      >>> told me privately, at your shop XP is not optional. If that is the
      >>> case ... is that asking, or forcing?
      >
      >> It's what we do. If you don't want to work XP style, don't take the job.
      >
      > Yes. I'm not equipped to judge what is going on in your shop, but in
      > general if the actual approach to XP were as rigid as that statement
      > could be taken ... I wouldn't be surprised to find the kind of
      > reluctant compliance that doesn't really work.

      Sorry, but I'm calling BS on that. You spent a week in our shop, and we put
      every developer in front of you, without their manager or evil XP coach in
      the room. You had every opportunity to ask any question you wanted to ask.
      Our on-site interview process includes half a day of working in our
      environment. If you're not sure that you want to work in XP style, you have
      an opportunity to find out. Our HR stats tell us that about 1 out of 4
      people decline our employment offers. Some may because of money, some may
      be because of location, some may be because of XP. We rarely get an honest
      answer.

      We try to do XP based on this http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/whatisxp.htm

      If those ideas are no longer valid, in your opinion, please update it.


      >
      >>>> Well, my boss told me to implement XP. I did my best, in spite
      >>>> my obvious short-comings. How did I do? 8^)
      >
      >>> You tell me. How satisfied are you with the results and current rate
      >>> of improvement?
      >
      >> The day you hear me say I'm satisfied, is the day I stop trying to
      >> improve.
      >> Stick a fork in me, I'm done! 8^)
      >
      > :) I didn't say "Are you satisfied, T/F?" I asked how satisfied you
      > are. I ask because about half your postings here sound very
      > dissatisfied and half do not.

      Because I had the obviously wrong expectation that I could come here and
      talk with expreienced XP practioners. Say where we are, how we are coming
      up short, and get advice on how to improve. Have we lost our way here, or I
      am I in the wrong place?

      GB.


      >
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > I try to Zen through it and keep my voice very mellow and low.
      > Inside I am screaming and have a machine gun.
      > Yin and Yang I figure.
      > -- Tom Jeffries
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...
      >
      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
      > extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...
      >
      > ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.comYahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Manuel Klimek
      Chris, On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Chris Wheeler ... 1. if you have a measurable dependent variable, which we haven t. 2. if you have enough consistent
      Message 138 of 138 , May 14, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Chris,

        On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:07 AM, Chris Wheeler
        <christopher.wheeler@...> wrote:
        > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek@...> wrote:
        >
        >>
        >> From what I know about maths, combining metrics about which we have no
        >> idea how strongly they are correlated with the dependent variable /and
        >> each other/ means that we can't say anything about it. The 'errors'
        >> might cancel out, they might multiply, and I think the basic problem
        >> is to find the correlation of the independent variables. If we knew
        >> these, we could create a metric that explains the dependent variable
        >> in a better way.
        >>
        >> I don't think regression analysis applies here because of the
        >> interdependence of the errors of the independent variables.
        >
        > Ok. Like I said, read up on it. There are ways to discern multicollinearity
        > amongst independent variables and ways to deal with it. Regression analysis
        > is helpful in determining how much variation in your dependent variable is
        > accounted for by your independent variables.

        1. if you have a measurable dependent variable, which we haven't.
        2. if you have enough consistent data that you can do sound
        statistical analysis, which is moot if you don't have (1), but which
        is hard to come by, even if you have (1). With consistent I mean that
        the environment does not change in a way that the metrics change
        without the target metric changing. Which would lead to all that
        repeatability that CMMI seems to be about, which seems to lead to
        making the same error over and over again, just to be able to prove
        that you made it.
        3. I said interdependence of the errors, which I think is something
        else than covariance of the independent variables, whilst related to
        it and probably computable if you could find out the covariances. But
        I confess that I am not on firm ground here.

        > Or, don't read up on it. Whatever suits you.

        I already read up on it since you hinted me to do so, and I knew about
        it before, having had some graduate math during CS and finance
        studies. Just thought I'd mention it :-)

        Cheers,
        /Manuel

        --
        http://klimek.box4.net
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.