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

Re: [XP] Re: auditing XP

Expand Messages
  • Alexander Fedorenko
    ... Try to plan Your day instead of logging after doing things. It works for me pretty well. Alexander Fedorenko, mailto:sashaf@arshin.com ... ïÔ: Ken
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      > Personally, I really hate having to log everything I'm doing,

      Try to plan Your day instead of logging after doing things. It works for me pretty well.

      Alexander Fedorenko,
      mailto:sashaf@...


      -----Исходное сообщение-----
      От: Ken Boucher [mailto:yahoo@...]
      Отправлено: 1 жовтня 2003 р. 15:03
      Кому: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
      Тема: [XP] Re: auditing XP

      --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ralph Johnson
      <johnson@c...> wrote:
      > Alistair Cockburn says that it isn't possible to tell whether a
      > group is doing XP from outside the group. I do it all the time.
      > All I really need is a log of each person's activiity and access to
      > their cvs repository.

      > The customer should make a more detailed report and should
      > report on every iteration planning meeting what is to be
      > done and what was actually done.
      >
      > I think from that (and a few on-site interviews) I can tell
      > if a group is doing XP. Do you think this will not work?

      Trying to accurately work this out in my mind. Feel free to tell me
      what I'm missing.

      Planning Game - interview?
      Small Releases - repository?
      Metaphor - interview?
      Simple Design - code review from repository?
      Testing - repository? Interviews? some code tool?
      Refactoring - interview? code review?
      Pair Programming - logs?
      Collective Code Ownership - interview? repository?
      Continuous Integration - repository?
      Sustainable Pace - logs?
      On-site Customer - interview?
      Coding Standards - code review? some code tool?

      Personally, I really hate having to log everything I'm doing, but it
      just seems to be the nature of the business to spend a chunk of time
      documenting the time you spend on everything except the amount of
      time you spend documenting it.

      Honestly, the big problem I see is that most of the measurements
      you're getting are coming from interviews and logs, both of which are
      mostly consisting of people telling you what they want you to hear. I
      mean let's be honest, what's more likely to be accurate, a comment in
      the code or someone's interview or timesheet? At least the comment
      was truthful at one time.


      To Post a message, send it to: extremeprogramming@...

      To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: extremeprogramming-unsubscribe@...

      ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Steven Gordon
      ... Code changes checked in, but no new unit tests checked in. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > Refactoring - interview? code review?

        Code changes checked in, but no new unit tests checked in.


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Steven Gordon
        Whenever I document the time I spend at the request of management, I ALWAYS include an entry for the time I spent documenting the time I spent. You cannot
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Whenever I document the time I spend at the request of management, I ALWAYS include an entry for the time I spent documenting the time I spent. You cannot allow management to think your time is free.

          I agree with the second observation. Not only is there a bias because people tend to say what they think you want to hear, but introspection also tends to be a report of internal rationalizations and mental models, not what really occurred. But, I do not see a better solution.

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Ken Boucher [mailto:yahoo@...]
          Sent: Wed 10/1/2003 5:02 AM
          To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
          Cc:
          Subject: [XP] Re: auditing XP

          Personally, I really hate having to log everything I'm doing, but it
          just seems to be the nature of the business to spend a chunk of time
          documenting the time you spend on everything except the amount of
          time you spend documenting it.

          Honestly, the big problem I see is that most of the measurements
          you're getting are coming from interviews and logs, both of which are
          mostly consisting of people telling you what they want you to hear.




          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Ron Jeffries
          ... This is why most such practices require contemporaneous logs. Which, after much research, I find means log things as you do them, not at the end of the
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 9:50:04 AM, Steven Gordon wrote:

            > Whenever I document the time I spend at the request of management, I ALWAYS include an entry for the time
            > I spent documenting the time I spent. You cannot allow management to think your time is free.

            > I agree with the second observation. Not only is there a bias because people tend to say what they think
            > you want to hear, but introspection also tends to be a report of internal rationalizations and mental
            > models, not what really occurred. But, I do not see a better solution.

            This is why most such practices require contemporaneous logs. Which, after
            much research, I find means "log things as you do them, not at the end of
            the day".

            Ron Jeffries
            www.XProgramming.com
            One never knows, do one? -- Fats Waller
          • Syver Enstad
            ... What about the time it takes to make a very simple application that uses a subset of the system? If the system has a simple design it should be relatively
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              yahoogroups@... writes:

              > > Simple Design - code review from repository?
              >
              > Code review is the only thing that comes to mind here.

              What about the time it takes to make a very simple application that
              uses a subset of the system? If the system has a simple design it
              should be relatively easy to instantiate a couple of system classes
              and make them do something.
            • Chris Hanson
              ... Since I do consulting work on a time-and-materials basis, I track my time to the quarter hour. However, I track my time *my* way using OmniOutliner, which
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 07:02 AM, Ken Boucher wrote:
                > Personally, I really hate having to log everything I'm doing, but it
                > just seems to be the nature of the business to spend a chunk of time
                > documenting the time you spend on everything except the amount of
                > time you spend documenting it.

                Since I do consulting work on a time-and-materials basis, I track my
                time to the quarter hour. However, I track my time *my* way using
                OmniOutliner, which takes almost no time at all. If a client wants me
                to track my hours some other way, say by using some nasty web
                application or by filling out paper forms, then I do it that way too
                and bill for the time it takes.

                I've had cases where it would take me 30 to 60 minutes per week to
                enter my data into someone else's time tracking system. If they prefer
                I spend billable time that way rather than doing real work, I'm not
                going to argue with them. However, I'm perfectly up front with them
                that I consider the time billable, and let them make the decision with
                that in mind.

                -- Chris

                --
                Chris Hanson, bDistributed.com, Inc. | Email: cmh@...
                Custom Mac OS X Development | Phone: +1-847-372-3955
                http://bdistributed.com/ | Fax: +1-847-589-3738
                http://bdistributed.com/Articles/ | Personal Email: cmh@...
              • acockburn@aol.com
                In a message dated 10/1/2003 1:20:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Ralph Johnsonwrites:
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 10/1/2003 1:20:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Ralph
                  Johnsonwrites:


                  <<Alistair Cockburn says that it isn't possible to tell
                  whether a group is doing XP from outside the group.
                  I do it all the time.>>

                  Hi, Ralph,

                  1. Could you please publish here the rules or heuristics you use to determine
                  whether or not they have followed XP?
                  You may be the only person in the world who has reason enough to care whether
                  a team actually did whatever you choose to think of as "XP". Therefore the
                  evaluation mechanism you use is very important.

                  2. My point wasn't that You don't know in your own mind whether they're doing
                  XP (which is adequate for your course), or Ron doesn't know in his own mind
                  (or I don't know in my own mind) whether they're doing XP, but that there isn't
                  enough consensus to constitute meaning to the phrase, "This team is / isn't
                  doing XP".

                  3. Point #2 was effectively neutralized w.r.t. the CMMi question by those who
                  pointed out that a team doesn't have to be observed to be doing "XP"
                  (whatever that is), but only what they say they're doing. So with respect to CMMi,
                  "This team is/isn't doing XP" is an irrelevant sentence (which is just as well,
                  since I also think it's a meaningless sentence, except, possibly, in your
                  course).

                  4. Leading forward to a different question, if the sentence is both
                  meaningless in utterance, and as many people here point out, also insignificant ("What
                  do you care whether they are doing *real* XP --- the important question is
                  whether the project is succeeding and people are happy?"), then what would make a
                  decent response to the FAQ, "how can we tell if we're doing XP?"

                  ==============================================
                  Alistair Cockburn
                  ==============================================


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • acockburn@aol.com
                  In a message dated 10/1/2003 1:20:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com writes: In this context, I am reminded that long ago,
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 10/1/2003 1:20:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
                    extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com writes:
                    In this context, I am reminded that long ago, Alistair came to visit the C3
                    team. He commented later to the effect that he learned that the team
                    actually did the process that they and their management said that they did,
                    and if I recall, expressed some surprise, as this was rather an unusual
                    result.

                    So it seems that Alistair has forgotten how to determine whether teams are
                    doing what they claim to be doing, using an independent resource if need
                    be. I hope he kept good notes on how he used to do it, because it can be a
                    valuable ability when one is coaching. ;->
                    ---> At that time, "doing XP" had a meaning. Given the definition I was
                    handed, it wasn't just that they were doing what they said they would be doing,
                    they were doing "XP".

                    I remain in awe by that remarkable result.

                    Also by the fact that there was no brick falling onto the team's collect head
                    at that time.

                    (My audit wouldn't have worked for CMMi purposes, because I didn't check the
                    C3 processes for ensuring that the process was taught and followed ... only
                    that coincidentally it just happened to be being followed on the day I visited)

                    ==============================================
                    Alistair Cockburn
                    ==============================================


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • acockburn@aol.com
                    In a message dated 10/1/2003 1:20:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Ron Jeffries writes: I think it works, but I have one big problem with the whole issue. I m
                    Message 9 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 10/1/2003 1:20:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Ron Jeffries
                      writes:
                      I think it works, but I have one "big" problem with the whole issue. I'm
                      not sure that it means anything to say "We are doing XP", or "We are doing
                      RUP" for that matter.
                      ---> sorry, I didn't spot this before putting in my similar sentence. It
                      appears Ron and I accidentally agree again (sorry, Ron)

                      ==============================================
                      Alistair Cockburn
                      ==============================================


                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Ron Jeffries
                      ... I m sure it must be my mistake ... Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com You are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge. --Professor
                      Message 10 of 18 , Oct 1, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 5:54:16 PM, acockburn@... wrote:

                        > In a message dated 10/1/2003 1:20:47 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Ron Jeffries
                        > writes:
                        > I think it works, but I have one "big" problem with the whole issue. I'm
                        > not sure that it means anything to say "We are doing XP", or "We are doing
                        > RUP" for that matter.
                        > ---> sorry, I didn't spot this before putting in my similar sentence. It
                        > appears Ron and I accidentally agree again (sorry, Ron)

                        I'm sure it must be my mistake ...

                        Ron Jeffries
                        www.XProgramming.com
                        You are closing your eyes to a situation you do not wish to acknowledge.
                        --Professor Harold Hill
                      • Ron Jeffries
                        ... Here are a few potentially decent responses, to be used in a context-dependent way. See Brad Appleton for details on how to be optimally context-dependent.
                        Message 11 of 18 , Oct 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Wednesday, October 1, 2003, at 5:47:33 PM, acockburn@... wrote:

                          > 4. Leading forward to a different question, if the sentence is both
                          > meaningless in utterance, and as many people here point out, also insignificant ("What
                          > do you care whether they are doing *real* XP --- the important question is
                          > whether the project is succeeding and people are happy?"), then what would make a
                          > decent response to the FAQ, "how can we tell if we're doing XP?"

                          Here are a few potentially decent responses, to be used in a
                          context-dependent way. See Brad Appleton for details on how to be optimally
                          context-dependent.

                          ==========================================================================
                          "Well, if we knew whether we were doing XP, what use would we make of the
                          information?"
                          ==========================================================================
                          "Well, first of all, are you doing all of the XP practices all the time?"

                          If they say yes, next ask "How's that working for you?"
                          If they say no, next ask "How's that working for you?"
                          ==========================================================================
                          "1. Show me the team's Open Workspace.
                          2. I'd like to meet your Customer.
                          3. What stories are being done this iteration? Can I see the cards?
                          4. Tell me about your performance on acceptance tests.
                          5. When was your most recent release? When's the next one?
                          6. Here are some cards. Tell me about the system's design.
                          7. Let's go watch people program for a while.
                          8. How many classes, methods, lines of code do you have? How many test
                          classes, methods, assertions, lines? Have you tracked that over time?
                          9. Do you know what your unit test coverage is?
                          10. How do you handle defects coming in from the customers?
                          11. How are you doing on refactoring? Any changes? Why?
                          12. Tell me about who works on what code.
                          13. What kind of coding standards do you follow?
                          14. How often do you build the system? Do the builds always work?
                          15. When do you start your days, and end them? I'm staying over Saturday,
                          will there be anyone here to come talk to?"
                          ==========================================================================
                          "Hire Ron Jeffries to come in and tell you. It's the only way to be sure."
                          ==========================================================================

                          Ron Jeffries
                          www.XProgramming.com
                          For me, XP ain't out there, it's in here. -- Bill Caputo
                        • Ralph Johnson
                          Ron Jeffries had a bunch of ideas for checking that XP practices were being followed which are mostly more work than what we do, though they would be more
                          Message 12 of 18 , Oct 11, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Ron Jeffries had a bunch of ideas for checking that XP practices were being
                            followed which are mostly more work than what we do, though they would be
                            more accurate. We monitor a lot of projects, so we can't spend too much
                            time on each.

                            He also said:
                            > I think it works, but I have one "big" problem with the whole issue. I'm
                            > not sure that it means anything to say "We are doing XP", or "We are doing
                            > RUP" for that matter.
                            >
                            > We can certainly monitor, however, the extent to which the team is doing
                            > (or at least reporting) the XP practices, which is probably nearly good
                            > enough for a number of simple purposes:
                            >
                            > -- satisfying a CMM or ISO process check;
                            > -- finding out whether students are adhering to practices;
                            > -- detecting correlation between practice and result;
                            > -- detecting probable areas to measure and/or improve;

                            I define XP as doing the XP practices. Is there any other useful
                            definition?

                            Ken Boucher was pretty close when he said:

                            > Planning Game - interview?
                            Logs plus reports from customer.
                            > Small Releases - repository?
                            > Metaphor - interview?
                            > Simple Design - code review from repository?
                            The TAs and I read code. I don't know if this is what you mean by "code
                            review". It is impossible to be sure that students are doing the simplest
                            thing they can think of but it is easy to see unnecessary complexity. It
                            takes days or weeks for people to build infrastructure.

                            > Testing - repository? Interviews? some code tool?
                            We make sure there are automated tests and we count them and complain if
                            there don't seem to be very many. We usually don't make sure that tests are
                            written before code. When they aren't, usually code is checked in one day
                            and tests are checked in the next. It is theoretically possible for
                            students to write code and tests on the same day without writing tests
                            first, but not likely.

                            > Refactoring - interview? code review?
                            We read code and say "this needs to be refactored". Refactoring is one of
                            the practices students find hardest. Many of them look at bad code and
                            can't see that it needs to be refactored, or else can't see how. Most teams
                            have some people who can, and eventually that knowledge spreads, but it
                            takes awhile.

                            Steven Gordon <sagordon@...> suggested "Code changes checked in, but no
                            new unit tests checked in." This is a good idea, and we should look for it.

                            > Pair Programming - logs?
                            > Collective Code Ownership - interview? repository?
                            > Continuous Integration - repository?
                            > Sustainable Pace - logs?
                            > On-site Customer - interview?
                            Also logs. If the customer is a student then they will have a log. The
                            best customers are not in the class, of course. But all XP projects are
                            required to have a customer, and students find their own projects, so often
                            someone in the class is a customer.

                            > Coding Standards - code review? some code tool?
                            Also interview. "What are your coding standards?"

                            -Ralph Johnson
                          • Ron Jeffries
                            ... I d like to think that there is, though I confess I don t know what it might be. It seems awfully narrowly defined as Just the Pracs, Ma am. Is it still
                            Message 13 of 18 , Oct 11, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Saturday, October 11, 2003, at 5:36:36 PM, Ralph Johnson wrote:

                              > I define XP as doing the XP practices. Is there any other useful
                              > definition?

                              I'd like to think that there is, though I confess I don't know what it
                              might be. It seems awfully narrowly defined as Just the Pracs, Ma'am.

                              "Is it still XP if we type the stories into Excel," etc.

                              Ron Jeffries
                              www.XProgramming.com
                              It's easier to act your way into a new way of thinking
                              than to think your way into a new way of acting. --Millard Fuller
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.