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

Re: [XP] Re: What shouldn't have worked, but did?

Expand Messages
  • Brad Stiles
    ... As one who s had to work in that type of environment, I d agree with Ron s assessment.
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 19, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      > On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:22 AM, paul wrote:
      >
      >> Progress was excrutiatingly slow as you would expect but by some miracle they actually managed to get
      >> a working build every week or so :-). The primary mitigation strategy was for individual developers never to
      >> change code outside what they were immediately working on.
      >
      >
      > I'm not sure I'd call that "working" so much as "limping" or "struggling".
      >
      > Ron Jeffries

      As one who's had to work in that type of environment, I'd agree with
      Ron's assessment.
    • Charlie Poole
      Hi Brad & Ron, I agree as well, but I do think this points out something interesting about adoption. Those of us who have been there in fact have a different
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 19, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Brad & Ron,

        I agree as well, but I do think this points out something interesting about
        adoption.

        Those of us who have been there in fact have a different definition of a
        "working"
        project than those who haven't and it's hard to convince them that there's a

        whole other level of "working" when they have never seen it.

        I ran into this with my first experience of XP and wrote about it as the
        "acceptable
        level of failure."

        Charlie

        On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Brad Stiles <bradley.stiles@...>wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > > On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:22 AM, paul wrote:
        > >
        > >> Progress was excrutiatingly slow as you would expect but by some miracle
        > they actually managed to get
        > >> a working build every week or so :-). The primary mitigation strategy
        > was for individual developers never to
        > >> change code outside what they were immediately working on.
        > >
        > >
        > > I'm not sure I'd call that "working" so much as "limping" or
        > "struggling".
        > >
        > > Ron Jeffries
        >
        > As one who's had to work in that type of environment, I'd agree with
        > Ron's assessment.
        >
        >
        >


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Adam Sroka
        The entire notion of work being fun is foreign to a large portion of our industry. That doesn t mean that we should put ourselves back in shackles, it only
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 19, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          The entire notion of work being fun is foreign to a large portion of
          our industry. That doesn't mean that we should put ourselves back in
          shackles, it only means that we need to sing louder and get more of
          them to come see what the fuss is about.

          On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Charlie Poole <charliepoole@...> wrote:
          > Hi Brad & Ron,
          >
          > I agree as well, but I do think this points out something interesting about
          > adoption.
          >
          > Those of us who have been there in fact have a different definition of a
          > "working"
          > project than those who haven't and it's hard to convince them that there's a
          >
          > whole other level of "working" when they have never seen it.
          >
          > I ran into this with my first experience of XP and wrote about it as the
          > "acceptable
          > level of failure."
          >
          > Charlie
          >
          > On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Brad Stiles <bradley.stiles@...>wrote:
          >
          >> **
          >>
          >>
          >> > On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:22 AM, paul wrote:
          >> >
          >> >> Progress was excrutiatingly slow as you would expect but by some miracle
          >> they actually managed to get
          >> >> a working build every week or so :-). The primary mitigation strategy
          >> was for individual developers never to
          >> >> change code outside what they were immediately working on.
          >> >
          >> >
          >> > I'm not sure I'd call that "working" so much as "limping" or
          >> "struggling".
          >> >
          >> > Ron Jeffries
          >>
          >> As one who's had to work in that type of environment, I'd agree with
          >> Ron's assessment.
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
          >
          > [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
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Kay A Pentecost
          Hi, Adam, I once asked my boss (the owner of the company) for his definition of work. Anything that isn t fun, he replied. Kay Pentecost ... From:
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 21, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi, Adam,

            I once asked my boss (the owner of the company) for his definition of work.
            "Anything that isn't fun," he replied.

            Kay Pentecost

            -----Original Message-----
            From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
            Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:26 PM
            To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [XP] Re: What shouldn't have worked, but did?

            The entire notion of work being fun is foreign to a large portion of
            our industry. That doesn't mean that we should put ourselves back in
            shackles, it only means that we need to sing louder and get more of
            them to come see what the fuss is about.
          • Adam Sroka
            The idea that there is a dichotomy between work and play, and ultimately that you should do each as hard as you can but at distinct times, is very pervasive in
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 21, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              The idea that there is a dichotomy between work and play, and ultimately
              that you should do each as hard as you can but at distinct times, is very
              pervasive in our culture. It is unfortunate, because it seems to make us
              miss opportunities for both.

              On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Kay A Pentecost <tranzpupy@...>wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > Hi, Adam,
              >
              > I once asked my boss (the owner of the company) for his definition of work.
              > "Anything that isn't fun," he replied.
              >
              > Kay Pentecost
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
              > [mailto:extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Adam Sroka
              > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 1:26 PM
              > To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [XP] Re: What shouldn't have worked, but did?
              >
              >
              > The entire notion of work being fun is foreign to a large portion of
              > our industry. That doesn't mean that we should put ourselves back in
              > shackles, it only means that we need to sing louder and get more of
              > them to come see what the fuss is about.
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • JeffGrigg
              ... Work: 1. The use of a force to move an object a certain distance. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_scientific_definition_of_work 2. Work is the curse
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 22, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                --- "Kay A Pentecost" <tranzpupy@...> wrote:
                > I once asked my boss (the owner of the company) for his
                > definition of work. "Anything that isn't fun," he replied.

                Work:

                1. The use of a force to move an object a certain distance.

                http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_scientific_definition_of_work

                2. "Work is the curse of the drinking class." >;->


                If it was all fun, then we shouldn't expect to get paid for it. But if it is not enjoyable, at least some of the time, then it would be pretty sick for us to keep doing it.


                I went white water rafting down The Rogue River in Oregon. (4 days, 3 nights of camping) Beautiful and fun. They sell a T-shirt that says, "Work Sucks. I'm going on the river." And yet, we paid the guides to take us on the trip. (Run the rafts, set up camp, cook meals, keep us safe, etc.) They only hire people with a passion for it. But still, taking care of tourists is some part work and some part fun for them. If they were completely free to do what they wanted, they might still be rafting down rivers -- but probably not exactly how we were doing it.
              • Dave Rooney
                ... In his fantastic book Play , Dr. Stuart Brown says, The opposite of play isn t work, it s depression. Dave Rooney | Agile Coach and Co-founder Westboro
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 22, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  > The idea that there is a dichotomy between work and play, and ultimately
                  > that you should do each as hard as you can but at distinct times, is very
                  > pervasive in our culture. It is unfortunate, because it seems to make us
                  > miss opportunities for both.
                  >


                  In his fantastic book "Play", Dr. Stuart Brown says, "The opposite of play isn't work, it's depression."

                  Dave Rooney | Agile Coach and Co-founder
                  Westboro Systems - Agile Coaching, Training, Organizational Transformation.
                  Blog | Twitter | LinkedIn



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • paul
                  I took the spirit of the question to be what should, on paper, have been a complete train smash but somehow worked albeit in some limited way I m not going
                  Message 8 of 13 , Oct 31, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I took the spirit of the question to be "what should, on paper, have been a complete train smash but somehow worked albeit in some limited way"

                    I'm not going advocating the situation I described as a model to emulate :-) but its still interesting to note that approaches that appear to be completely disfunctional can sometimes be made to produce something.

                    --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, RonJeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Hi paul ...
                    >
                    > On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:22 AM, paul wrote:
                    >
                    > > Progress was excrutiatingly slow as you would expect but by some miracle they actually managed to get a working build every week or so :-). The primary mitigation strategy was for individual developers never to change code outside what they were immediately working on.
                    >
                    >
                    > I'm not sure I'd call that "working" so much as "limping" or "struggling".
                    >
                    > 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
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.