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

Re: Communicating from the Enterprise to Project Teams

Expand Messages
  • Marvin D. Toll
    @paul... Happy to provide additional context. Our company is committed to low-cost-sourcing with distributed teams. Nothing that is said in this thread is
    Message 1 of 370 , Aug 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      @paul... Happy to provide additional context. Our company is committed to
      low-cost-sourcing with distributed teams. Nothing that is said in this
      thread is going to change that. I'm employed to make that model work; thus
      the basis for a 'narrow' focused question.



      I appreciate that some folks would not enjoy working in a 'low-cost-sourcing
      distributed' context and would seek to change the context. (For example,
      Ron) I personally find the challenge of constraints invigorating. It has
      caused me to examine specific dimensions of Enterprise Application
      Development more deeply then might otherwise occur. The dimension being
      examined in this thread is effective communicating of Application
      Architecture/Design. ("Effective" being directionally defined as 80% of
      teams are willing to self-select [without mandate] to use what is being
      communicated 80% of the time.)



      <question v.3.1>
      What strategies can you endorse via 'hands-on' personal experience that
      effectively communicated Application Architecture/Design from an open source
      project to self-organized teams?
      </question v.3.1>



      <paul>

      So this is the assumption that underlies your question:

      <marvin> Of course, as you know, I never assert that distributed teams are
      as effective as a collocated team! However, unless you and Chet are willing
      to work for $8 per hour collocation is not going to happen anytime soon.

      </marvin>

      Well the answer is you aren't going to get competent teams paying $8 per
      hour. And no 'support' from the 'experts' in the centre is going to change
      that.

      Rather then re-stating your narrow question, why not expand on the wider
      context and the economic model upon which it is based?

      </paul>



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Bill Caputo
      ... The problem is that it isn t just one topic - its at least 2 or 3 and as near as I can tell constitutes the entire traffic of the list right now. Also, I
      Message 370 of 370 , Sep 8 8:49 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
        > Seems not reading this topic might suffice ... but to each his own
        > ... I guess.

        The problem is that it isn't just one topic - its at least 2 or 3 and
        as near as I can tell constitutes the entire traffic of the list right
        now. Also, I can't not read things, it's a medical condition or
        something...

        > I know Marvin and I am confident that he's trying to do as right a
        > thing as he can.

        I agree with that. The again, the road to hell and all that...

        > I freely grant that I cannot figure out why what we
        > are saying seems to elude him.

        I don't know either. We could ask him, I suppose. But I expect it'll
        just start the whole thing all over again.

        > I suppose we could stop trying, but
        > that seems wrong to me.

        To each his own... I guess ;->

        > I'd say that if the thread ticks you, or
        > anyone, off ... start new ones, respond to other ones, pitch in in
        > other ways.

        Well, as I said, no other threads seem to be going on right now. If I
        can think of something constructive to say, I'll start a new one.
        However, I apologize to the list for venting publicly (and so adding
        to the noise). I'll stick to signal or silence for a while.

        Best,
        Bill
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.