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

Re: Simplest Possible Process - adaptable

Expand Messages
  • Robert Copelan
    Following the discussions in this list normally leaves me with a headache. They are 2-3 intelligence levels above my normal discussions and require lots of
    Message 1 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
      Following the discussions in this list normally leaves me with a
      headache. They are 2-3 intelligence levels above my normal discussions
      and require lots of concentration to follow.. BUt its worth it. I
      come away filled with ideas and hope..

      Am slightly confused about the below.. After looking up "anathema"
      still am confusted. Alistair, do you mean that every team inventing
      its own process is a good thing or a bad thing??

      Robert
      Friedrichshafen, Germany


      > The holdouts - and I don't hold out much hope for them - are the
      executives,
      > to whom the idea of having multiple processes floating around their
      companies,
      > and every project team inventing its own process, is anathema. I keep
      > reciting the adaptable manta and giving lectures on the subject, but
      I don't expect
      > this to be a short or awfully successful road.
      >
    • aacockburn
      ... Including ... severe bound on how ... seems ... 12 ... The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other definition of what it means to do
      Message 2 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
        <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
        > On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 12:16:00 PM, acockburn@a... wrote:
        >
        > > DSDM, FDD, Grizzly and XP are agile but not very adaptable.
        Including
        > > retrospectives into XP helps, but the 12 practices put a pretty
        severe bound on how
        > > far the group can go and still be saying they are doing XP.
        >
        > The XP spokesmodels do not agree that XP is not adaptable. Alistair
        seems
        > to be making the common assumption that XP is defined as "do these
        12
        > things". That is not the case.
        >
        > Ron Jeffries

        The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other
        definition of what it means to "do XP." In the absence of any other
        test agreed upon by Kent, Ron, Ward and possibly Uncle Bob, this is
        the only imaginable test. As soon as there is another test, we can
        apply it.

        I have in fact heard Ron announce at a panel that XP is nothing more
        than people getting together at the start of a project and agreeing
        on a set of rules, and whatever they agree upon is XP. I can't
        imagine this being true, even if Ron says it.

        Here's a situation: "We got together and reflected. We decided not to
        do pair programming. We won't do TDD, nor have complete unit tests on
        an automated framework. Our iteration length is 6 weeks. Are we doing
        XP?"

        I fail to imagine how you can defend that they are doing XP.

        Alistair
      • aacockburn
        I love going to Dictionary.com and seeing it say: Get the Top 10 Most Popular Sites for anathema I didn t know there were _any_ popular sites for
        Message 3 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
          I love going to Dictionary.com and seeing it say:
          "Get the Top 10 Most Popular Sites for "anathema""

          I didn't know there were _any_ popular sites for "anathema"! But then
          I click on the link and the first thing on the list is
          <<Anathema
          The official Anathema homepage, containing the latest news and lots
          of other stuff.
          From:www.blackmetal.com/~mega/Anathema/
          >>

          So there ! wow.

          Back on topic, I view that every project should / must / inevitably
          will create its own, slightly or highly modified process.
          Most execs, however, view this as a dangerous, expensive and
          undesirable proposition.

          Incorrectly done, they are probably correct. I am working around how
          to do it and keep within cost and safety margins.

          Alistair

          --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Copelan"
          <robertc@m...> wrote:
          >
          > Following the discussions in this list normally leaves me with a
          > headache. They are 2-3 intelligence levels above my normal
          discussions
          > and require lots of concentration to follow.. BUt its worth it. I
          > come away filled with ideas and hope..
          >
          > Am slightly confused about the below.. After looking up "anathema"
          > still am confusted. Alistair, do you mean that every team
          inventing
          > its own process is a good thing or a bad thing??
          >
          > Robert
          > Friedrichshafen, Germany
          >
          >
          > > The holdouts - and I don't hold out much hope for them - are the
          > executives,
          > > to whom the idea of having multiple processes floating around
          their
          > companies,
          > > and every project team inventing its own process, is anathema. I
          keep
          > > reciting the adaptable manta and giving lectures on the subject,
          but
          > I don't expect
          > > this to be a short or awfully successful road.
          > >
        • yahoogroups@jhrothjr.com
          From: aacockburn To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
          Message 4 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
            From: "aacockburn" <acockburn.at.aol.com@...>
            To: "extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com"
            <extremeprogramming.at.yahoogroups.com@...>
            Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 2:29 PM
            Subject: [XP] Re: Simplest Possible Process - adaptable


            > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
            > <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
            > > On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 12:16:00 PM, acockburn@a... wrote:
            > >
            > > > DSDM, FDD, Grizzly and XP are agile but not very adaptable.
            > Including
            > > > retrospectives into XP helps, but the 12 practices put a pretty
            > severe bound on how
            > > > far the group can go and still be saying they are doing XP.
            > >
            > > The XP spokesmodels do not agree that XP is not adaptable. Alistair
            > seems
            > > to be making the common assumption that XP is defined as "do these
            > 12
            > > things". That is not the case.
            > >
            > > Ron Jeffries
            >
            > The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other
            > definition of what it means to "do XP." In the absence of any other
            > test agreed upon by Kent, Ron, Ward and possibly Uncle Bob, this is
            > the only imaginable test. As soon as there is another test, we can
            > apply it.

            Something that most people seem to have missed is that there are
            ***three*** levels of definition in XP: the values, the principles
            and the practices. The practices are defined for novices (your level
            1) who are working in a colocated environment together with all
            necessary resources (including customers, QA, DBAs, UI experts,
            etc.) on site or readily availible when needed.

            To paraphrase a play that I'm sure most of us have sat through
            on one Christmas season or other: "This must be clearly understood,
            or no good will come from what follows."

            The 5 principles are what you use to evaluate a proposed practice,
            or a change to a practice. To repeat chapter 8 of the White Book:

            1. Rapid feedback
            2. Assume simplicity
            3. Incremental change
            4. Embracing change
            5. Quality work

            Each of the twelve practices conforms to these principles in the
            context of a colocated team.

            > Here's a situation: "We got together and reflected. We decided not to
            > do pair programming. We won't do TDD, nor have complete unit tests on
            > an automated framework. Our iteration length is 6 weeks. Are we doing
            > XP?"

            > I fail to imagine how you can defend that they are doing XP.

            They can't legitimately defend it, although that's never stopped
            anyone. A 6 week iteration does not conform to rapid feedback,
            and the rest do not encourage quality work.

            John Roth
            >
            > Alistair
          • aacockburn
            ... for ... even abandoning ... There are about a dozen books on XP out there. In which ones do we find this definition of XP? Alistair
            Message 5 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
              --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Hansen"
              <peter@e...> wrote:
              > We've interpreted XP as being "learn to do these things, adjusted
              for
              > your environment if required, and once you feel you're doing pretty
              > much all of them for a while and are confident you know what you're
              > doing, move on, by fixing things, changing things, or
              even 'abandoning'
              > canonical XP if that's the best thing for you".

              There are about a dozen books on XP out there. In which ones do we
              find this definition of XP?

              Alistair
            • Peter Hansen
              ... Why in all of them, of course! (Quite seriously.) (And note the use of all and not each , though a wise reader could, I think, clearly find it even in
              Message 6 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                Alistair Cockburn wrote:
                > --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Hansen"
                > <peter@e...> wrote:
                > > We've interpreted XP as being "learn to do these things, adjusted for
                > > your environment if required, and once you feel you're doing pretty
                > > much all of them for a while and are confident you know what you're
                > > doing, move on, by fixing things, changing things, or even 'abandoning'
                > > canonical XP if that's the best thing for you".
                >
                > There are about a dozen books on XP out there. In which ones
                > do we find this definition of XP?

                Why in all of them, of course!

                (Quite seriously.)

                (And note the use of "all" and not "each", though a wise reader
                could, I think, clearly find it even in "each" of them.)

                Another, less useful reply would be to point more forcibly to the
                word "interpreted" in what you quoted above. Surely you understand
                that this clearly indicates this was not a _definition_ of XP.

                -Peter
              • Ron Jeffries
                ... It s not the only test I can imagine, therefore not the only one imaginable. Here are a few alternatives, NONE OF WHICH IS REALLY THE DEFINITION: A team is
                Message 7 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                  On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:29:28 PM, aacockburn wrote:

                  > The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other
                  > definition of what it means to "do XP." In the absence of any other
                  > test agreed upon by Kent, Ron, Ward and possibly Uncle Bob, this is
                  > the only imaginable test. As soon as there is another test, we can
                  > apply it.

                  It's not the only test I can imagine, therefore not the only one
                  imaginable. Here are a few alternatives, NONE OF WHICH IS REALLY THE
                  DEFINITION:

                  A team is doing XP if { Ward, Kent, ... } say they are.

                  All teams are doing XP.

                  No teams are doing XP.

                  A team is doing XP if (a) it says it is and (b) it successfully ships
                  software on or before time, on or under budget, with fewer defects than
                  would have been acceptable.

                  A team is doing XP if [see (b) above].

                  Therefore "doing the 12 practices" is not the only imaginable test. I trust
                  that we now all agree, having imagined at least the six tests listed above.
                  Most of you, I'm sure, have striven mightily not to imagine another one.

                  > I have in fact heard Ron announce at a panel that XP is nothing more
                  > than people getting together at the start of a project and agreeing
                  > on a set of rules, and whatever they agree upon is XP. I can't
                  > imagine this being true, even if Ron says it.

                  I am quite sure that I didn't say that. If I did, I'm sorry now. And
                  besides, the panel is dead.

                  But I really don't think I'd say that. Perhaps I was misinterpreted. Was it
                  in another country?

                  > Here's a situation: "We got together and reflected. We decided not to
                  > do pair programming. We won't do TDD, nor have complete unit tests on
                  > an automated framework. Our iteration length is 6 weeks. Are we doing
                  > XP?"

                  > I fail to imagine how you can defend that they are doing XP.

                  Wouldn't. Didn't say it. Was misinterpreted. Or just wrong. The former
                  seems more likely, statistically speaking, by a small margin.

                  The topic has been addressed quite a bit:

                  In November, 2000, I seemed to have the view that "doing XP" meant doing
                  all 12 practices, but that it wasn't a good question:

                  People aren't always sure whether they are doing XP. It's not always
                  clear how to do XP in a specific environment. "Are we doing XP?" may be
                  the wrong question. Applying the principles for best effect is what's
                  most important.

                  http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/are_we_doing_xp.htm

                  In December 2000, Chet suggested that the practices may change, and the
                  values will not:

                  http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/NotXP.htm

                  In September 2001, I said:

                  People ask whether they have to do the XP practices to be doing XP. In
                  some environments, some of the practices are difficult or impossible. You
                  don't have to do the practices to be doing XP: You have to have done
                  them. Practice makes perfect.

                  http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/PracticesForaReason.htm

                  In July 2002, in my introduction to the Korean edition of /XPI/, I took a
                  sort of ShuHaRi approach, saying that the practices are how to learn XP.

                  http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/koreanintro.htm

                  At this point, Alistair is surely shouting "QED" or whatever he shouts when
                  he thinks someone has made his point for him. But that's not the point that
                  has been made.

                  There is no definition for "Doing XP", as far as I know. Certainly the
                  phrase is used, but like "Doing RUP" or "Doing martial arts", there is no
                  precise meaning. The closest meaning that I know so far (and at any minute
                  someone might come up with one that I would embrace) is:

                  XP is what you do after you have done the 12 practices, all together, for
                  long enough.

                  Sorry. But it really is part of the Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, or ShuHaRi
                  stuff. Both of which were introduced into the agile culture, as far as I
                  know, by Alistair.

                  Are you doing XP? Yes or No!

                  "I choose option C." -- Jason Yip.

                  http://www.jroller.com/page/jchyip/20040108?catname=Agile
                  and see also
                  http://www.jroller.com/page/jchyip/20031204?catname=Agile

                  And, I swear this, the sig is random.

                  Ron Jeffries
                  www.XProgramming.com
                  The practices are not the knowing: they are a path to the knowing.
                • Ron Jeffries
                  ... OK, Alistair, you win. Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com When all ideas of [XP] is and [XP] is not have been extinguished, then [XP] reality will manifest
                  Message 8 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                    On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:59:07 PM, aacockburn wrote:

                    > There are about a dozen books on XP out there. In which ones do we
                    > find this definition of XP?

                    OK, Alistair, you win.

                    Ron Jeffries
                    www.XProgramming.com
                    When all ideas of [XP] is and [XP] is not have been extinguished,
                    then [XP] reality will manifest itself. -- Thich Nhat Hanh [Ron Jeffries]
                  • J. B. Rainsberger
                    ... What about the common maxim that XP is what you get after to master the 12 practices? That s pretty uniform. I m sure Ron and Kent have said it; likely
                    Message 9 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                      aacockburn wrote:

                      > The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other
                      > definition of what it means to "do XP." In the absence of any other
                      > test agreed upon by Kent, Ron, Ward and possibly Uncle Bob, this is
                      > the only imaginable test. As soon as there is another test, we can
                      > apply it.

                      What about the common maxim that XP is what you get after to master the
                      12 practices? That's pretty uniform. I'm sure Ron and Kent have said it;
                      likely Bob, too. Will Caputo likes it. I like it.
                      --
                      J. B. Rainsberger,
                      Diaspar Software Services
                      http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
                      Let's write software that people understand
                    • J. B. Rainsberger
                      ... ...and to head off Alistair s question, it s either in one of the books or it s in one of the books yet to be written. It s certainly been plastered all
                      Message 10 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                        J. B. Rainsberger wrote:

                        > aacockburn wrote:
                        >
                        >>The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other
                        >>definition of what it means to "do XP." In the absence of any other
                        >>test agreed upon by Kent, Ron, Ward and possibly Uncle Bob, this is
                        >>the only imaginable test. As soon as there is another test, we can
                        >>apply it.
                        >
                        > What about the common maxim that XP is what you get after to master the
                        > 12 practices? That's pretty uniform. I'm sure Ron and Kent have said it;
                        > likely Bob, too. Will Caputo likes it. I like it.

                        ...and to head off Alistair's question, it's either in one of the books
                        or it's in one of the books yet to be written. It's certainly been
                        plastered all over this list.
                        --
                        J. B. Rainsberger,
                        Diaspar Software Services
                        http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
                        Let's write software that people understand
                      • Ron Jeffries
                        ... Yes, important work. We also need some people working on making it clear to execs that they should / must / inevitably will ... and that it s a good thing.
                        Message 11 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                          On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:36:00 PM, aacockburn wrote:

                          > Back on topic, I view that every project should / must / inevitably
                          > will create its own, slightly or highly modified process.
                          > Most execs, however, view this as a dangerous, expensive and
                          > undesirable proposition.

                          > Incorrectly done, they are probably correct. I am working around how
                          > to do it and keep within cost and safety margins.

                          Yes, important work. We also need some people working on making it clear to
                          execs that they should / must / inevitably will ... and that it's a good
                          thing.

                          Can we still say "it's a good thing"?

                          Ron Jeffries
                          www.XProgramming.com
                          Do only what is necessary. Keep only what you need.
                        • aacockburn
                          I consider this such a fine and thorough append that I won t attempt to kibbitz on it here. Best left standing. cheers, Ron --- Alistair ... other ... is ...
                          Message 12 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                            I consider this such a fine and thorough append that I won't attempt
                            to kibbitz on it here. Best left standing.

                            cheers, Ron --- Alistair


                            --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
                            <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
                            > On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 2:29:28 PM, aacockburn wrote:
                            >
                            > > The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other
                            > > definition of what it means to "do XP." In the absence of any
                            other
                            > > test agreed upon by Kent, Ron, Ward and possibly Uncle Bob, this
                            is
                            > > the only imaginable test. As soon as there is another test, we
                            can
                            > > apply it.
                            >
                            > It's not the only test I can imagine, therefore not the only one
                            > imaginable. Here are a few alternatives, NONE OF WHICH IS REALLY THE
                            > DEFINITION:
                            >
                            > A team is doing XP if { Ward, Kent, ... } say they are.
                            >
                            > All teams are doing XP.
                            >
                            > No teams are doing XP.
                            >
                            > A team is doing XP if (a) it says it is and (b) it successfully
                            ships
                            > software on or before time, on or under budget, with fewer
                            defects than
                            > would have been acceptable.
                            >
                            > A team is doing XP if [see (b) above].
                            >
                            > Therefore "doing the 12 practices" is not the only imaginable test.
                            I trust
                            > that we now all agree, having imagined at least the six tests
                            listed above.
                            > Most of you, I'm sure, have striven mightily not to imagine another
                            one.
                            >
                            > > I have in fact heard Ron announce at a panel that XP is nothing
                            more
                            > > than people getting together at the start of a project and
                            agreeing
                            > > on a set of rules, and whatever they agree upon is XP. I can't
                            > > imagine this being true, even if Ron says it.
                            >
                            > I am quite sure that I didn't say that. If I did, I'm sorry now. And
                            > besides, the panel is dead.
                            >
                            > But I really don't think I'd say that. Perhaps I was
                            misinterpreted. Was it
                            > in another country?
                            >
                            > > Here's a situation: "We got together and reflected. We decided
                            not to
                            > > do pair programming. We won't do TDD, nor have complete unit
                            tests on
                            > > an automated framework. Our iteration length is 6 weeks. Are we
                            doing
                            > > XP?"
                            >
                            > > I fail to imagine how you can defend that they are doing XP.
                            >
                            > Wouldn't. Didn't say it. Was misinterpreted. Or just wrong. The
                            former
                            > seems more likely, statistically speaking, by a small margin.
                            >
                            > The topic has been addressed quite a bit:
                            >
                            > In November, 2000, I seemed to have the view that "doing XP" meant
                            doing
                            > all 12 practices, but that it wasn't a good question:
                            >
                            > People aren't always sure whether they are doing XP. It's not
                            always
                            > clear how to do XP in a specific environment. "Are we doing XP?"
                            may be
                            > the wrong question. Applying the principles for best effect is
                            what's
                            > most important.
                            >
                            > http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/are_we_doing_xp.htm
                            >
                            > In December 2000, Chet suggested that the practices may change, and
                            the
                            > values will not:
                            >
                            > http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/NotXP.htm
                            >
                            > In September 2001, I said:
                            >
                            > People ask whether they have to do the XP practices to be doing
                            XP. In
                            > some environments, some of the practices are difficult or
                            impossible. You
                            > don't have to do the practices to be doing XP: You have to have
                            done
                            > them. Practice makes perfect.
                            >
                            > http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/PracticesForaReason.htm
                            >
                            > In July 2002, in my introduction to the Korean edition of /XPI/, I
                            took a
                            > sort of ShuHaRi approach, saying that the practices are how to
                            learn XP.
                            >
                            > http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/koreanintro.htm
                            >
                            > At this point, Alistair is surely shouting "QED" or whatever he
                            shouts when
                            > he thinks someone has made his point for him. But that's not the
                            point that
                            > has been made.
                            >
                            > There is no definition for "Doing XP", as far as I know. Certainly
                            the
                            > phrase is used, but like "Doing RUP" or "Doing martial arts", there
                            is no
                            > precise meaning. The closest meaning that I know so far (and at any
                            minute
                            > someone might come up with one that I would embrace) is:
                            >
                            > XP is what you do after you have done the 12 practices, all
                            together, for
                            > long enough.
                            >
                            > Sorry. But it really is part of the Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, or
                            ShuHaRi
                            > stuff. Both of which were introduced into the agile culture, as far
                            as I
                            > know, by Alistair.
                            >
                            > Are you doing XP? Yes or No!
                            >
                            > "I choose option C." -- Jason Yip.
                            >
                            > http://www.jroller.com/page/jchyip/20040108?catname=Agile
                            > and see also
                            > http://www.jroller.com/page/jchyip/20031204?catname=Agile
                            >
                            > And, I swear this, the sig is random.
                            >
                            > Ron Jeffries
                            > www.XProgramming.com
                            > The practices are not the knowing: they are a path to the knowing.
                          • Ron Jeffries
                            ... Kiss, kiss. -- Dale Emery Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating
                            Message 13 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                              On Wednesday, March 31, 2004, at 5:02:31 PM, aacockburn wrote:

                              > cheers, Ron --- Alistair

                              Kiss, kiss. -- Dale Emery

                              Ron Jeffries
                              www.XProgramming.com
                              New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled,
                              the humiliating question arises, "Why then are you not taking part in
                              them?" -- H. G. Wells
                            • Amir Kolsky
                              ]The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other ]definition of what it means to do XP. In the absence of any other ]test agreed upon by
                              Message 14 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                                ]The XP spokesmodels have uniformly failed to provide any other
                                ]definition of what it means to "do XP." In the absence of any other
                                ]test agreed upon by Kent, Ron, Ward and possibly Uncle Bob, this is
                                ]the only imaginable test. As soon as there is another test, we can
                                ]apply it.
                                ]
                                ]I have in fact heard Ron announce at a panel that XP is nothing more
                                ]than people getting together at the start of a project and agreeing
                                ]on a set of rules, and whatever they agree upon is XP. I can't
                                ]imagine this being true, even if Ron says it.
                                ]
                                ]Here's a situation: "We got together and reflected. We decided not to
                                ]do pair programming. We won't do TDD, nor have complete unit tests on
                                ]an automated framework. Our iteration length is 6 weeks. Are we doing
                                ]XP?"
                                ]
                                ]I fail to imagine how you can defend that they are doing XP.

                                OK, I've been doing XP with a bunch of people that have never done anything
                                like it before.

                                We do the planning game, to a degree. We fix iterations. We TDD. We do
                                acceptance tests.
                                We sorta have an on site customer, and we work real hard to DTSTTW. We don't
                                pair program (except with the coaches) and the guys won't leave their
                                cubicles.

                                Do we do all 12? No.

                                Why are we doing XP? Yes.

                                We are trying to get the team to adopt the values of XP. Most of them are
                                giving it their best effort. Given the mammoth change that a programmer and
                                the organization must undertake, they don't have to do all 12 to do XP.

                                They have to aim for the values.

                                No TDD, no acceptance tests and 6 week iterations could be construed as XP
                                in an organization that did nothing of the sort, with massive waterfall
                                processes.

                                Perhaps we need to view XP also in light of what was before the team
                                undertook it...

                                Amir
                              • kentlbeck
                                Anyone can claim to be extreme. Making that claim opens you to scrutiny by any interested party. There are benefits and risks to making that claim. The people
                                Message 15 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                                  Anyone can claim to be extreme. Making that claim opens you to
                                  scrutiny by any interested party. There are benefits and risks to
                                  making that claim. The people who have claimed to be extreme but
                                  weren't have been refuted and have suffered the consequences. The
                                  people who are extreme and are open about it have gained the
                                  benefits of using XP and the respect of the community.

                                  Kent
                                • PaulOldfield1@compuserve.com
                                  (responding to Alistair, Ron) ... There s always *some* process that is left to the discretion of the developers. Give them appropriate training and this
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Mar 31, 2004
                                    (responding to Alistair, Ron)

                                    > (Alistair)
                                    > Back on topic, I view that every project should / must / inevitably
                                    > will create its own, slightly or highly modified process.
                                    > Most execs, however, view this as a dangerous, expensive and
                                    > undesirable proposition.
                                    >
                                    > Incorrectly done, they are probably correct. I am working around
                                    > how to do it and keep within cost and safety margins.

                                    There's always *some* process that is left to the discretion of the
                                    developers. Give them appropriate training and this amount can
                                    be increased; as they get more experience, it can be increased.
                                    The 'attainable' property of a process that I value deals with this.
                                    To be attainable, all parts of the process must either be already
                                    within the capabilities of the developers or be within their 'reach'.

                                    Yes, that leaves a lot open to interpretation, but treat it as a
                                    requirement, and design a solution that meets the requirement.
                                    We should be good at that.

                                    > (Ron)
                                    > Yes, important work. We also need some people working on making
                                    > it clear to execs that they should / must / inevitably will ... and that
                                    it's
                                    > a good thing.
                                    >
                                    > Can we still say "it's a good thing"?

                                    Talk about attainability, reach, overreaching, the risks and benefits.
                                    Talk about adequacy, sufficiency, necessity, the risks and benefits.
                                    Tell them what approach you would take, and its risks and benefits.
                                    Allow them to say which risks they would further ameliorate, which
                                    benefits they would forego, and adapt the process accordingly -
                                    after discussing the risks and benefits. At some level, you need to
                                    let *them* say what is a "good thing". They probably just want to
                                    have the confidence that they can leave the decisions in your hands.


                                    Paul Oldfield
                                    www.aptprocess.com
                                  • Alleman, Glen B.
                                    Even better it s an Extreme Metal site Glen B. Alleman ... From: aacockburn [mailto:acockburn@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:36 PM To:
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Apr 1, 2004
                                      Even better it's an "Extreme Metal" site

                                      Glen B. Alleman

                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: aacockburn [mailto:acockburn@...]
                                      Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 12:36 PM
                                      To: extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com
                                      Subject: [XP] Re: Simplest Possible Process - adaptable

                                      I love going to Dictionary.com and seeing it say:
                                      "Get the Top 10 Most Popular Sites for "anathema""

                                      I didn't know there were _any_ popular sites for "anathema"! But then
                                      I click on the link and the first thing on the list is
                                      <<Anathema
                                      The official Anathema homepage, containing the latest news and lots
                                      of other stuff.
                                      From:www.blackmetal.com/~mega/Anathema/
                                      >>

                                      So there ! wow.
                                    • Alleman, Glen B.
                                      Kent, And what about us that use XP-inspired processes. Doing a subset of XP but reaping some benefits? The processes we don t use are not because we don t
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Apr 1, 2004
                                        Kent,

                                        And what about us that use XP-inspired processes. Doing a subset of XP
                                        but reaping "some" benefits? The processes we don't use are not because
                                        we don't want to but for external constraint reasons. Where do those
                                        types of shops fit?

                                        Glen B. Alleman

                                        -----Original Message-----
                                        From: kentlbeck Subject: [XP] Re: Simplest Possible Process - adaptable

                                        Anyone can claim to be extreme. Making that claim opens you to
                                        scrutiny by any interested party. There are benefits and risks to
                                        making that claim. The people who have claimed to be extreme but
                                        weren't have been refuted and have suffered the consequences. The
                                        people who are extreme and are open about it have gained the
                                        benefits of using XP and the respect of the community.

                                        Kent
                                      • J. B. Rainsberger
                                        ... Has anyone else noticed the way that Kent makes the obvious profound? -- J. B. Rainsberger, Diaspar Software Services http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Apr 1, 2004
                                          kentlbeck wrote:

                                          > Anyone can claim to be extreme. Making that claim opens you to
                                          > scrutiny by any interested party. There are benefits and risks to
                                          > making that claim. The people who have claimed to be extreme but
                                          > weren't have been refuted and have suffered the consequences. The
                                          > people who are extreme and are open about it have gained the
                                          > benefits of using XP and the respect of the community.

                                          Has anyone else noticed the way that Kent makes the obvious profound?
                                          --
                                          J. B. Rainsberger,
                                          Diaspar Software Services
                                          http://www.diasparsoftware.com :: +1 416 791-8603
                                          Let's write software that people understand
                                        • PaulOldfield1@compuserve.com
                                          (responding to J.B.) ... I ll give him full marks for making the obvious obvious. Paul Oldfield
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Apr 2, 2004
                                            (responding to J.B.)

                                            > Has anyone else noticed the way that Kent makes the
                                            > obvious profound?

                                            I'll give him full marks for making the obvious obvious.

                                            Paul Oldfield
                                          • Jeff Grigg
                                            ... Will: This is either madness or brilliance. Jack: It s remarkable how often those two traits coincide. -- RJ (...and some characters in some movie.
                                            Message 21 of 27 , Apr 2, 2004
                                              > (responding to J.B.)
                                              >> Has anyone else noticed the way that Kent makes the
                                              >> obvious profound?

                                              --- PaulOldfield1@c... wrote:
                                              > I'll give him full marks for making the obvious obvious.
                                              > Paul Oldfield

                                              Will: "This is either madness or brilliance."
                                              Jack: "It's remarkable how often those two traits coincide."
                                              -- RJ (...and some characters in some movie. ;-)
                                            • Karl Scotland
                                              ... I ve always been reluctant to claim that we do XP . We don t unit test ALL our code - its difficult in some of the languages we use. We don t have any
                                              Message 22 of 27 , Apr 2, 2004
                                                > -----Original Message-----
                                                > From: kentlbeck [mailto:kentbeck@...]
                                                >
                                                > Anyone can claim to be extreme. Making that claim opens you to
                                                > scrutiny by any interested party. There are benefits and risks to
                                                > making that claim. The people who have claimed to be extreme but
                                                > weren't have been refuted and have suffered the consequences. The
                                                > people who are extreme and are open about it have gained the
                                                > benefits of using XP and the respect of the community.
                                                >

                                                I've always been reluctant to claim that we "do XP". We don't unit test
                                                ALL our code - its difficult in some of the languages we use. We don't
                                                have any automated acceptance tests - its difficult with our technology.
                                                I still recognise them as good things, and I certainly wish we could do
                                                them more.

                                                I prefer to say we are "inspired by XP and aspire to XP".

                                                Karl

                                                BBCi at http://www.bbc.co.uk/

                                                This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
                                                personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
                                                stated.
                                                If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
                                                Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
                                                reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the
                                                BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
                                                Further communication will signify your consent to this.
                                              • Peter Hansen
                                                ... Would you mind identifying what those languages are? I find it a challenge, but one well worth facing, to try very creatively to find ways to unit test
                                                Message 23 of 27 , Apr 2, 2004
                                                  Karl Scotland [mailto:karl.scotland@...] wrote:
                                                  > I've always been reluctant to claim that we "do XP". We
                                                  > don't unit test ALL our code - its difficult in some of the
                                                  > languages we use.

                                                  Would you mind identifying what those languages are? I find
                                                  it a challenge, but one well worth facing, to try very creatively
                                                  to find ways to unit test any language I have to use.

                                                  > We don't have any automated acceptance
                                                  > tests - its difficult with our technology.

                                                  Same question as above. I've done a lot of work now in an
                                                  area which I think many people would describe in the same
                                                  manner -- embedded systems -- but we still found a way. What
                                                  makes testing your technology so challenging?

                                                  -Peter
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.