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

Re: [XP] Re: New Agile Vehicles

Expand Messages
  • Adam Sroka
    Agreed. It is not the notion of commitement that I am avoiding. It is a misunderstanding around what it means to commit and how we should respond when we don t
    Message 1 of 216 , Nov 16, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Agreed. It is not the notion of commitement that I am avoiding. It is a
      misunderstanding around what it means to commit and how we should respond
      when we don't meet those commitments.

      I could meet that challenge head on by discussing commitments with the team
      until we all agree what they mean. However, I have found another approach
      that seems to work better for me.
      On Nov 16, 2010 4:40 PM, "Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      > Hello, Adam. On Tuesday, November 16, 2010, at 12:41:18 PM, you
      > wrote:
      >
      >> I don't believe in the concept of commitment, because then the
      >> retrospective becomes a blame game about what things we could have
      >> anticipated and what we couldn't. I prefer the notion of starting only
      >> what we think we can do immediately, getting it done quickly, and then
      >> pulling something else. I take this concept from Kanban, though
      >> apparently calling this limited WIP is causing some cognitive
      >> dissonance.
      >
      > This style is probably good, and may be better. I'm not sure yet.
      > However, as discussed a bit already, this notion of commitment is
      > not the one those of us who like it and use it well have in mind.
      >
      > If blame is the game, it is not commitment that causes it.
      >
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > You are to act in the light of experience as guided by intelligence.
      > -- Nero Wolfe
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Steven Gordon
      On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:11 AM, D.André Dhondt ... Alternative interpretation: Domains that consider themselves scientific tend to require formal proof
      Message 216 of 216 , Jan 24, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:11 AM, D.André Dhondt
        <d.andre.dhondt@...> wrote:
        > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Amir Kolsky <kolsky@...> wrote:
        >
        >>   And again, one is reminded of Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis…
        >>
        >
        > Meaning that people tend to reject new ideas just because they're new?
        > (Semmelweis suggested surgeons should wash hands with chlorine between
        > patients).

        Alternative interpretation:

        Domains that consider themselves scientific tend to require formal
        proof instead of empirical success before accepting new ideas.

        >
        > --
        > D. André Dhondt
        > mobile: 215-805-0819
        > skype: d.andre.dhondt
        > twitter: adhondt   http://dhondtsayitsagile.blogspot.com/
        >
        > Support low-cost conferences -- http://AgileTour.org/
        > If you're in the area, join Agile Philly http://www.AgilePhilly.com
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > 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
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.