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

Re: [XP] Dangerous Tools?

Expand Messages
  • Allen Higgins
    Indeed, my thinking is to deduce exactly as you point out; that an intelligent response (by management presumably) is to suspect the validity of reports, to
    Message 1 of 56 , Jul 2, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Indeed, my thinking is to deduce exactly as you point out; that an
      intelligent response (by management presumably) is to suspect the validity
      of reports, to understand their underlying dependence on code, to reflect on
      the potentials for gamed behaviour to manipulate the inputs etc. Equally it
      may be possible that such a tool can be used positively. On the face of it,
      it simply adds some additional reporting on top of what is already available
      from Subversion etc.

      While the sales pitch for the programeter is quite two dimensional it does
      focus on acts of "code production itself". My sense is that it could be a
      useful tool to invite others (managers?) to commence a process of reading
      the code their organisation produces.

      Allen

      On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Nina Niskanen <nina.niskanen@...>
      wrote:

      > 2008/7/2 Allen Higgins <allen.higgins@...<allen.higgins%40gmail.com>
      > >:
      >
      > > Well it could be good in so far as it invites others (managers?) to
      > engage
      > > with the process of reading the code their organisation produces.
      >
      > How do you figure? My understanding of the software was that you
      > basically just point it towards your version control and the software
      > will just analyze any and all check-ins and produce reports. Why would
      > any manager need to look at the code, when they have these awesome
      > charts on how the programmers are performing, fully automated?
      > *shudders*
      >
      > Somehow I don't see that tool providing very good metrics for a
      > programmer using agile techniques. Just the opposite actually. It
      > probably provides better metrics if you start gaming the score by
      > writing bad code.
      >
      > Nina
      >
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Steve Freeman
      Correction. I remember that story, but it wasn t from me. Not sure who it was. The indirect story I did tell was of a CEO of a rival company to Worldcom when
      Message 56 of 56 , Jul 16, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Correction. I remember that story, but it wasn't from me. Not sure who
        it was.

        The indirect story I did tell was of a CEO of a rival company to
        Worldcom when Bernie Ebbers was cooking his books. Because this CEO
        was honest his numbers weren't as good and he got thrown out.

        S.

        On 10 Jul 2008, at 23:05, Kent Beck wrote:
        > At QCon London I got a short, sharp lesson on the downside of
        > transparency.
        > Steve Freeman told a story where he and his partner caused the team
        > to miss
        > a delivery date. It was understandable, reasonable, not done with
        > malice or
        > incompetence, just one of those things. However, he had a boss who
        > was in
        > the habit of summarily firing people who brought bad news but wasn't
        > particularly good at ferreting out details. The "transparent" thing
        > for
        > Steve to do would be to own up to his mistake and get fired. I don't
        > think
        > anyone thought that was a good idea, even if we were swept up in the
        > rhetoric of transparency. The lesson I learned is that transparency
        > needs to
        > be balanced with safety. I still think, though, that in most
        > situations
        > transparency is safe, often safer than trying to keep secrets.
        >
        > There's another sense in which transparency is a business fashion at
        > the
        > moment, like casual clothes and sports analogies, and working to
        > lead the
        > fashion is better than having someone impose their version. This
        > cuts across
        > the whole good/not good thing. Transparency is a fact of business
        > life, with
        > upsides and downsides. The principle of opportunity suggests that it
        > will be
        > more valuable if turned into a opportunity for learning and
        > demonstrating
        > trustworthiness.
        >
        > Regards,
        >
        > Kent Beck
        > Three Rivers Institute

        Steve Freeman
        http://www.mockobjects.com

        Winner of the Agile Alliance Gordon Pask award 2006
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.