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

Pushers

Expand Messages
  • Ron Jeffries
    I m cross-posting this to extremeprogramming and agilemodeling. In my previous posting on agilemodeling, I mentioned that I believe that the XP use of On-site
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 2, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm cross-posting this to extremeprogramming and agilemodeling.

      In my previous posting on agilemodeling, I mentioned that I believe
      that the XP use of On-site Customer + User Story + conversation +
      Acceptance Test was less costly than Use Case + whatever one does with
      them, but there has been no comparative study or even productive
      discussion. I want to come back to that last point.

      I'm drawing here on my own experience, sparked by Gerry Hummell's
      recent excellent posting about taking the best of all the good stuff
      out there. And I'm prepared to accept that everything I'll talk about
      here is my fault, as I am prolific, inclined to enjoy
      argumexxxxxxdiscussion, and generally irritating. Nonetheless ...

      There is a small cadre of thoughtful people out there who seem visibly
      "against XP". Matt may or may not count, I'm still not sure he isn't
      just trolling. But certainly Doug Rosenburg and Kendall Scott appear
      to have positioned themselves in this role. (If I'm mis-stating your
      positions, please correct me.) These are surely smart, well-meaning
      people who see some kind of great risk in XP, and who feel the need so
      strongly that they want to blow the whistle in articles and even
      books.

      What's interesting is this: as far as I know, none of these detractors
      has ever sat down with the XP spokesmodels and talked things through.
      I know none of them ever has with me, and I seem to be at least
      visible if not appealing. They're clearly not doing XP, as they think
      it is dangerous. So ... what's up with that? Why not get together and
      see whether we can find what is good in the various approaches, find
      out if we can learn what the other guys are talking about (based on
      Matt's work and the SD article, I think there's definitely stuff we
      haven't gotten across), and _then_ decide whether we want to unmask
      XP, decorate it, or move on to something even better.

      Here's my offer: I'll meet with any sincere member of the methods
      community who wants to learn what we really teach, discuss and even
      argue about issues, and try to come to an understanding if not
      agreement. We can share expenses or I'll come to you if need be. All I
      ask is a sincere intent to learn and share and come to common
      understanding.

      What do you say to that?

      Ronald E Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
      --Inigo Montoya
    • Kerns, Bob
      Ron, you ve been known to admit from time to time that XP doesn t really apply to every situation. I haven t seen the discussion in question, but is it
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron, you've been known to admit from time to time that XP doesn't really
        apply to every situation. I haven't seen the discussion in question, but is
        it possible they see risk because they're not looking at the same sort of
        environment? Wouldn't you say it's risky to apply out-of-the-box XP in
        inappropriate situations?

        Wouldn't you say it's risky to apply ANY process in inappropriate
        situations?

        As for use cases -- use cases can be made arbitrarily heavyweight, or
        arbitrary lightweight. I would point out that maximally lightweight use
        cases can less costly than *ANY* process that actually works! (I.e. if you
        leave out the conversation that should go on with use cases). I would argue
        that use cases, used correctly, look pretty similar to the XP environment,
        (i.e. there's a conversation, acceptance tests are written, but work better
        in the absence of an on-site customer, or in the presence of a large number
        of parties who need to be involved.

        But that's when you're NOT doing XP. The point is, my guess is you're not on
        the same page with them as to the situations being discussed.

        I'm a non-XPer who nonetheless has a great deal of respect for what you do;
        I consider you guys a great counterweight to excesses on the other side.
        (Not to mention, many/most XP practices apply just about anywhere, and you
        have great names & slogans for them).

        But I don't buy the occasional reflexive XP attitude that "this is the best
        way to do things and everything else is inferior/wrong/not good". Nor, much
        of the time, do you, to your credit, as demonstrated by your proposed
        conversation. Just remember that you may learn as much from the
        conversation, about the range of situations we find in software development.

        Anyway, I hope these observations from an outside party are useful, even if
        I don't know the specifics. I've been bothered by the "us vs them" thing
        here for a while, and this seemed like a good opening...

        --- Fragments of Original Message ---
        Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 07:58:02 -0400
        From: Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>
        Subject: Pushers

        n my previous posting on agilemodeling, I mentioned that I believe
        that the XP use of On-site Customer + User Story + conversation +
        Acceptance Test was less costly than Use Case + whatever one does with
        them, but there has been no comparative study or even productive
        discussion. I want to come back to that last point.

        ...These are surely smart, well-meaning
        people who see some kind of great risk in XP, and who feel the need so
        strongly that they want to blow the whistle in articles and even
        books.

        What's interesting is this: as far as I know, none of these detractors
        has ever sat down with the XP spokesmodels and talked things through.
        I know none of them ever has with me, and I seem to be at least
        visible if not appealing. They're clearly not doing XP, as they think
        it is dangerous. So ... what's up with that?...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.