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

RE: [XP] How many practices?

Expand Messages
  • Ted M. Young
    ... Completely agree with (a). And, I agree with (b), but only because you said Sustainable Behavior rather than Sustainable Pace . Process review or
    Message 1 of 37 , Nov 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Ron Jeffries stated on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:39 AM:
      >
      > Around Wednesday, November 28, 2001, 1:23:43 PM, jbrewer@... wrote:
      >
      > >> In my next formulation, that's going under Sustainable Pace.
      >
      > > Hmmm... In my mind process review seems orthogonal to sustainable
      > > pace. I mean, they're definitely mutually supporting, but so are the
      > > other processess.
      >
      > The notion, and it may be a bad one, is that (a) process review needs
      > to be in there and is not, and (b) it's a Sustaining Behavior, as is
      > Not Working Too Hard, and probably some others.

      Completely agree with (a). And, I agree with (b), but only because you said
      "Sustainable Behavior" rather than "Sustainable Pace". Process review or
      retrospection or reflection seems to be a behavior that helps sustain XP, but
      it doesn't feel like it has anything to do with Pace since I equate that with
      Velocity: can we keep going iteration after iteration at the current velocity?
      Retrospection might help bring velocity back up to where it was by fixing what
      went wrong or what stopped working, but I also see retrospection working at
      multiple levels, just as feedback does.

      For example, we could do an iteration retrospective to see what we need to
      change for the next iteration. We could do a Project retrospective to see how
      we could run the next project better. We can also go in the other direction by
      having a mid-iteration retrospective (reflection might be a better term at this
      level), what Bill Wake calls a "Sanity Check" (which he freely admits he
      borrowed from someone else), which takes a look at whether the iteration is
      going well and allows you to do a mid-iteration correction -- something that I
      think seems really useful for the longer iterations (3 weeks). Continuing in
      this direction are the daily stand-up meetings where we can quickly reflect on
      what we did yesterday and what we might need to change to make today better.

      ;ted

      --
      Ted M. Young, Java Architect
      Caribou Lake -- Custom E-Solutions for Your Organization
      http://www.CaribouLake.com
      "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
      system that worked." - John Gall
    • Ted M. Young
      ... Completely agree with (a). And, I agree with (b), but only because you said Sustainable Behavior rather than Sustainable Pace . Process review or
      Message 37 of 37 , Nov 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Ron Jeffries stated on Wednesday, November 28, 2001 10:39 AM:
        >
        > Around Wednesday, November 28, 2001, 1:23:43 PM, jbrewer@... wrote:
        >
        > >> In my next formulation, that's going under Sustainable Pace.
        >
        > > Hmmm... In my mind process review seems orthogonal to sustainable
        > > pace. I mean, they're definitely mutually supporting, but so are the
        > > other processess.
        >
        > The notion, and it may be a bad one, is that (a) process review needs
        > to be in there and is not, and (b) it's a Sustaining Behavior, as is
        > Not Working Too Hard, and probably some others.

        Completely agree with (a). And, I agree with (b), but only because you said
        "Sustainable Behavior" rather than "Sustainable Pace". Process review or
        retrospection or reflection seems to be a behavior that helps sustain XP, but
        it doesn't feel like it has anything to do with Pace since I equate that with
        Velocity: can we keep going iteration after iteration at the current velocity?
        Retrospection might help bring velocity back up to where it was by fixing what
        went wrong or what stopped working, but I also see retrospection working at
        multiple levels, just as feedback does.

        For example, we could do an iteration retrospective to see what we need to
        change for the next iteration. We could do a Project retrospective to see how
        we could run the next project better. We can also go in the other direction by
        having a mid-iteration retrospective (reflection might be a better term at this
        level), what Bill Wake calls a "Sanity Check" (which he freely admits he
        borrowed from someone else), which takes a look at whether the iteration is
        going well and allows you to do a mid-iteration correction -- something that I
        think seems really useful for the longer iterations (3 weeks). Continuing in
        this direction are the daily stand-up meetings where we can quickly reflect on
        what we did yesterday and what we might need to change to make today better.

        ;ted

        --
        Ted M. Young, Java Architect
        Caribou Lake -- Custom E-Solutions for Your Organization
        http://www.CaribouLake.com
        "A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
        system that worked." - John Gall
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.