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

Re: [good] [XP] Preparing XP for the big projects

Expand Messages
  • Steven Gordon
    ... Especially when they call it research and/or hold it up as an exemplar.
    Message 1 of 30 , Jul 14 8:27 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Adam Sroka<adam.sroka@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Tim Ottinger<linux_tim@...> wrote:
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> ----- Original Message ----
      >>> From: Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
      >>>
      >>> Whenever someone says to me, "The way you described turned out to be
      >>> sub-optimal. So I modified it." And then in the course of discussion
      >>> they say things that make me suspect it is possible that they hadn't
      >>> fully understood or adopted my suggestions, I am concerned that the
      >>> adaptations are not local optimizations but simply a substitution for
      >>> missing skills/knowledge needed to do it the way that was suggested.
      >>>
      >>
      >> Adam,
      >>
      >> As people who pride themselves on quick thinking and quick learning, we
      >> tend
      >> to jump to 'ha' and 'ri' without much 'shu'. I mostly worry about people
      >> who
      >> want to "improve" XP by making it into waterfall or undisciplined
      >> nonsense.
      >> But they have a right. Who knows? Perhaps they are as smart as they think,
      >> and will give us something we never had before.
      >>
      >
      > Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, I don't feel terribly guilty
      > about thinking the former in absence of any evidence of the latter. I
      > also don't feel particularly guilty when someone says, "look what I
      > did," and I ask them, "how/why is that better?"
      >
      >> The good thing about freedom is that anything can happen. The bad thing
      >> about freedom is the same. :-)
      >>
      >
      > I absolutely think that people have the right to do whatever they
      > want. I also think that we have the right to challenge them.
      > Particularly, when they come to us asking for validation (or at least
      > acknowledgment) of what they have changed.

      Especially when they call it research and/or hold it up as an exemplar.
    • Chris Wheeler
      ... I got the impression that the original poster was presenting a hypothesis, formed from his experiences, which he hadn t tested but wanted to further
      Message 2 of 30 , Jul 14 10:52 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:

        > I absolutely think that people have the right to do whatever they
        > want. I also think that we have the right to challenge them.
        > Particularly, when they come to us asking for validation (or at least
        > acknowledgment) of what they have changed.
        >

        I got the impression that the original poster was presenting a hypothesis,
        formed from his experiences, which he hadn't tested but wanted to further
        research. I didn't get the impression that his email was the end of his
        research nor the basis of any proof.

        Seems like a sound way to proceed, no?

        Chris.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steven Gordon
        On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Chris ... That would depend on what the OP means by the word is . My reading is that the research is well under way, if not
        Message 3 of 30 , Jul 14 11:50 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:52 AM, Chris
          Wheeler<christopher.wheeler@...> wrote:
          >
          >
          > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
          >
          >> I absolutely think that people have the right to do whatever they
          >> want. I also think that we have the right to challenge them.
          >> Particularly, when they come to us asking for validation (or at least
          >> acknowledgment) of what they have changed.
          >>
          >
          > I got the impression that the original poster was presenting a hypothesis,
          > formed from his experiences, which he hadn't tested but wanted to further
          > research. I didn't get the impression that his email was the end of his
          > research nor the basis of any proof.
          >
          > Seems like a sound way to proceed, no?
          >

          That would depend on what the OP means by the word "is".

          My reading is that the research is well under way, if not already done
          and currently being written up.

          I find it a huge stretch to read the OP's original post as a mere
          research proposal. Can you really read it that way?

          > Chris.
          >
        • Tim Ottinger
          ... It would only be the exemplar thing that bothers me in the least. But I was convinced of a lot of things when I first read of XP, too. Tim Ottinger
          Message 4 of 30 , Jul 14 12:38 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            > Especially when they call it research and/or hold it up as an exemplar.

            It would only be the exemplar thing that bothers me in the least.
            But I was convinced of a lot of things when I first read of XP, too.

            Tim Ottinger
            http://agileinaflash.blogspot.com/
            http://agileotter.blogspot.com/
          • Chris Wheeler
            ... Yes I can read it that way, once I factored in the OP s English-as-a-second-language. Chris. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Message 5 of 30 , Jul 14 6:44 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Steven Gordon <sgordonphd@...> wrote:

              >
              > I find it a huge stretch to read the OP's original post as a mere
              > research proposal. Can you really read it that way?


              Yes I can read it that way, once I factored in the OP's
              English-as-a-second-language.

              Chris.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • zdnfa
              Dear all, Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the extremism I saw about XP, something I don t think Kent Beck really meant by
              Message 6 of 30 , Jul 14 7:48 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear all,

                Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant by EXTREME PROGRAMMING.
                I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I want to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in IADIS Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have good knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.
                2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge sharing.
                3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit knowledge sharing in XP.
                So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:


                And we emphasized principles like:
                • Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair developers rather than pair programmers.
                • Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of the project manager or coach.
                • Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the on-site-customer
                Is there any problem in that?!!!
              • Ron Jeffries
                Hello, zdnfa. On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10:48:03 PM, you ... Yes. It is surely possible to be successful using the approach you ve talked about: it s
                Message 7 of 30 , Jul 14 8:37 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello, zdnfa. On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 10:48:03 PM, you
                  wrote:

                  > Is there any problem in that?!!!

                  Yes. It is surely possible to be successful using the approach
                  you've talked about: it's possible to be successful with almost any
                  approach.

                  What is your plan for comparing your approach to other more
                  "classic" approaches, such as a more pure version of XP, or a more
                  pure version of waterfall, and so on?

                  Or, without such comparisons, what valid conclusions do you think
                  you might be able to draw?

                  Ron Jeffries
                  www.XProgramming.com
                  www.xprogramming.com/blog
                  It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare,
                  it is because we do not dare that they are difficult. --Seneca
                • Steven Gordon
                  ... agreed. ... agreed. ... Agile does away with phases by rotating the traditional process 90 degrees. Instead of doing phases in order such as these: -
                  Message 8 of 30 , Jul 14 8:40 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 7:48 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Dear all,
                    >
                    > Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the
                    > extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant by
                    > EXTREME PROGRAMMING.
                    > I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I want
                    > to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in IADIS
                    > Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                    > 1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have good
                    > knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.

                    agreed.
                    > 2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge
                    > sharing.

                    agreed.
                    > 3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit knowledge
                    > sharing in XP.

                    Agile does away with phases by rotating the traditional process 90 degrees.

                    Instead of doing phases in order such as these:
                    - domain modeling for the whole system,
                    - analysis for the whole system,
                    - design for the whole system,
                    - coding for the whole system,
                    - testing for the whole system,
                    - deployment for the whole system,
                    - getting feedback from the users on the whole system,
                    agile does all of the above for just a few thin functional slices of
                    the whole system in just 2 weeks, and then all of the above for a few
                    more functional slices the next two weeks, etc, always delivering
                    working software, learning from successes and failures, and applying
                    that learning to the next 2 week iteration.

                    > So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:
                    >
                    > And we emphasized principles like:
                    > • Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair developers
                    > rather than pair programmers.
                    > • Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of
                    > the project manager or coach.

                    The people doing the work keep it under control because they cannot go
                    too far wrong in 2 weeks and get feedback from each delivery of
                    working software. The overhead and misunderstandings of communication
                    via documentation is avoided.

                    > • Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the
                    > on-site-customer

                    Too long to wait for feedback and recover from mistakes and misunderstandings.

                    > Is there any problem in that?!!!
                    >
                  • Adam Sroka
                    ... That s dangerously close to an ad hominem. No one here has said anything that extreme thus far. ... It s rare that 95.5% of people agree on anything. The
                    Message 9 of 30 , Jul 17 7:56 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:48 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Dear all,
                      >
                      > Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the
                      > extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant by
                      > EXTREME PROGRAMMING.

                      That's dangerously close to an ad hominem. No one here has said
                      anything that extreme thus far.

                      > I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I want
                      > to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in IADIS
                      > Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                      > 1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have good
                      > knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.

                      It's rare that 95.5% of people agree on anything. The term "knowledge
                      sharing" without further elucidation is vacuous. Those who promote
                      document-centric methods would consider what they are doing "knowledge
                      sharing" and believe that it "enhances quality." Most Agile proponents
                      believe the same thing about their own notion of "knowledge sharing."
                      Neither group necessarily believes that the other's method of
                      "knowledge sharing" is effective.

                      > 2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge
                      > sharing.

                      That agrees with a basic tenet of Agile. Tacit knowledge, by
                      definition, can't be shared in a document-centric way. We believe that
                      document-centric approaches are flawed and direct interpersonal
                      communication is necessary. The above statistic supports that.
                      However, explicit knowledge can be shared verbally as well as written
                      down. So, the need for explicit knowledge does not necessitate a
                      document-centric approach.

                      > 3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit knowledge
                      > sharing in XP.

                      I can't address that. If the question were posed to me I would refuse
                      to answer until I had sufficient definitions of "analysis phase" and
                      "knowledge sharing in XP". Assuming I knew what was being suggested, I
                      would have to try it alongside the existing practices to know if it
                      added anything or took anything away.

                      > So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:
                      >
                      > And we emphasized principles like:
                      > • Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair developers
                      > rather than pair programmers.

                      I don't understand that. What is the difference between a "programmer"
                      and a "developer" in your estimation? How does one "balance" a pair?
                      Can I still work with someone who is substantially lighter or heavier
                      than I am? ;-)

                      > • Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of
                      > the project manager or coach.

                      This statement scares me a lot. Project managers don't "control"
                      anything, nor should they try. That goes at least double for coaches.
                      In my experience, unless documentation provides some direct business
                      value it is usually wasteful. Even when it does provide value,
                      maintaining it is more expensive than most realize.

                      > • Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the
                      > on-site-customer

                      How does this ease the job for the Customer? Is the Customer's job too hard now?
                    • Chris Wheeler
                      Adam, you appear quite passionate about research and XP. Since this research clearly isn t up to your standard, or even necessary, would you suggest a few
                      Message 10 of 30 , Jul 18 7:26 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Adam, you appear quite passionate about research and XP. Since this research
                        clearly isn't up to your standard, or even necessary, would you suggest a
                        few topics that may be worthy of further academic research? That may be
                        more helpful than this dismissive approach you are taking.

                        Chris.

                        On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:56 PM, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:

                        > On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:48 PM, zdnfa<zdnfa@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Dear all,
                        > >
                        > > Thanks for your comments on the topic, but I was a bit surprised at the
                        > > extremism I saw about XP, something I don't think Kent Beck really meant
                        > by
                        > > EXTREME PROGRAMMING.
                        >
                        > That's dangerously close to an ad hominem. No one here has said
                        > anything that extreme thus far.
                        >
                        > > I find it compulsory to develop XP if we are really XPers, and here I
                        > want
                        > > to expose what some of what we have found in a survey we conducted in
                        > IADIS
                        > > Informatics 2009 conference in Portugal.
                        > > 1. 95.5 of the surveyed IT experts (taught, practiced, or at least have
                        > good
                        > > knowledge of XP) say knowledge sharing enhances software quality.
                        >
                        > It's rare that 95.5% of people agree on anything. The term "knowledge
                        > sharing" without further elucidation is vacuous. Those who promote
                        > document-centric methods would consider what they are doing "knowledge
                        > sharing" and believe that it "enhances quality." Most Agile proponents
                        > believe the same thing about their own notion of "knowledge sharing."
                        > Neither group necessarily believes that the other's method of
                        > "knowledge sharing" is effective.
                        >
                        > > 2. More than 80% said that we need both explicit and tacit knowledge
                        > > sharing.
                        >
                        > That agrees with a basic tenet of Agile. Tacit knowledge, by
                        > definition, can't be shared in a document-centric way. We believe that
                        > document-centric approaches are flawed and direct interpersonal
                        > communication is necessary. The above statistic supports that.
                        > However, explicit knowledge can be shared verbally as well as written
                        > down. So, the need for explicit knowledge does not necessitate a
                        > document-centric approach.
                        >
                        > > 3. 68% said that an analysis phase will enhance explicit and tacit
                        > knowledge
                        > > sharing in XP.
                        >
                        > I can't address that. If the question were posed to me I would refuse
                        > to answer until I had sufficient definitions of "analysis phase" and
                        > "knowledge sharing in XP". Assuming I knew what was being suggested, I
                        > would have to try it alongside the existing practices to know if it
                        > added anything or took anything away.
                        >
                        > > So the modification we made is seen in the following figure:
                        > >
                        > > And we emphasized principles like:
                        > > � Use always balanced pairs. Try to make the pair look like pair
                        > developers
                        > > rather than pair programmers.
                        >
                        > I don't understand that. What is the difference between a "programmer"
                        > and a "developer" in your estimation? How does one "balance" a pair?
                        > Can I still work with someone who is substantially lighter or heavier
                        > than I am? ;-)
                        >
                        > > � Use rationalized documentation that keeps project within the control of
                        > > the project manager or coach.
                        >
                        > This statement scares me a lot. Project managers don't "control"
                        > anything, nor should they try. That goes at least double for coaches.
                        > In my experience, unless documentation provides some direct business
                        > value it is usually wasteful. Even when it does provide value,
                        > maintaining it is more expensive than most realize.
                        >
                        > > � Perform one analysis phase per one release. This eases the job of the
                        > > on-site-customer
                        >
                        > How does this ease the job for the Customer? Is the Customer's job too hard
                        > now?
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > 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
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


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