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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • Steven Gordon
    Good point. In agile software development, it is just more clear that a complete body of knowledge is unachievable.
    Message 1 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Good point.
       
      In agile software development, it is just more clear that a complete body of knowledge is unachievable.

       
      On 11/30/05, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
      On Wednesday, November 30, 2005, at 8:08:08 PM, Steven Gordon wrote:

      > Because the agile software development approaches are non-prescriptive and
      > recognize that every project and context is different, I believe there can
      > never be a "complete body of knowledge".

      Do you have in mind a few interesting topics where there /is/ a
      complete body of knowledge?

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      In programming, do, or undo. There is always try.  --Yoda
    • woynam
      I will keep repeating this until the day I die. They are *not* XP engineering practices. The practices existed before XP, were used by many of us who were not
      Message 2 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I will keep repeating this until the day I die.

        They are *not* XP engineering practices.

        The practices existed before XP, were used by many of us who were not
        "doing" XP (but were doing agile or pre-agile), and can be used
        independently of XP.

        XP recognized the existing best practices, relalized that one would
        gain the most by utilizing them as a full set of complimentary
        practices, and developed the best marketing department. :-)

        Mark


        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Dymond, Robin"
        <robin.dymond@c...> wrote:
        >
        > To further muddy the waters....
        >
        > I think software development teams need both Scrum and XP, and Theory of
        > Constraints, and Lean Thinking, and....
        >
        > Software development methods that are adaptive instead of prescriptive
        > are still new, and are just beginning to gain visibility (let alone
        > implementation) in large organizations. There is much left to do in this
        > space, and some smart insightful people have figured out some very
        > effective ideas, setting beacons in the fog for the rest of us. However
        > we still have a long ways to go before we can say we have a complete
        > body of knowledge.
        >
        > From my perspective, XP is the most advanced of the Agile methods in
        > terms of its practices. It is also the hardest to adopt because of all
        > the personal and organization behaviors that need to change. Scrum is
        > only organizational, and therefore is a little easier for transitioning
        > teams. Scrum also is complementary to XP software engineering practices,
        > these can be adopted over time as the team modifies their skills and
        > behaviors.
        >
        > Introducing XP engineering practices without Agile management practice,
        > either scrum or XP, usually has negative consequences, as it adds more
        > work to a team, without providing either motivation or recognition of
        > the value of the change. The teams will usually reject the practices,
        > and say XP doesn't work for them.
        >
        > If you fix the inputs to the team - the prioritized backlog, iterations,
        > delivering value, then you have an environment to introduce the
        > downstream processes such as TDD.
        >
        > Cheers,
        > Robin Dymond
        > Conclusive Consulting, Inc.
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Hodgetts
        > Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:42 PM
        > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] (unknown)
        >
        >
        > Ashraf Al Shafaki wrote:
        >
        > > With the growing popularity of XP, Scurm has repositioned
        > > itself now more towards the project management aspects of
        > > software development projects in order to fit itself in the >
        > technosphere as a complement to XP rather than a competitor > to it.
        >
        > I'm kinda curious how you came about making that statement?
        >
        > I was just at the recent Scrum Gathering in Boulder, where around 50
        > ScrumMasters, Scrum Practitioners, and Scrum Trainers got together with
        > Ken Schwaber, Jeff Sutherland, and many other Scrum thought leaders.
        >
        > I don't recall anyone talking about repositioning Scrum "more towards
        > the project management aspects of software development projects." In
        > fact I saw quite the opposite -- there was work around a wide variety of
        > all aspects of software development, from product management, to
        > organizational culture, to supporting Scrum through coaching and
        > consulting, and yes, even to technical practices.
        >
        > In fact, I heard *more* talk about technical practices this year than in
        > previous years, probably spurred on by Jeff Sutherland's reports of his
        > experiences with "Type C" Scrums, and how they require a lot attention
        > to good, continuous testing, integration, builds and release practices.
        >
        > Scrum and XP will always be "competitors" in the sense that each is a
        > specific collection of practices and strategies as a starting point.
        > But each is also intended to be an adaptive process, and XP practices
        > often fit well with Scrum practices, and vice versa. Scrum is less
        > inclusive and prescriptive in its practices, specifically engineering
        > practices, than XP, but I don't think that implies they are not intended
        > to be part of Scrum (or an implementation of Scrum).
        >
        > I think project management is a hot topic in the entire agile community
        > right now, as agile continues to expand to address more areas of
        > development and the development life cycle. So I think we see a lot of
        > project management-related postings on the list, but I'm not seeing that
        > as some sort of shift in emphasis in Scrum or a specialization on just
        > that aspect of development. At least not with the practitioners I meet.
        >
        > Regards,
        > Paul
        > -----
        > Paul Hodgetts -- CEO, Coach, Trainer, Consultant
        > Agile Logic -- www.agilelogic.com
        > Training, Coaching, Consulting -- Agile Processes/Scrum/Lean/XP Complete
        > solutions for adopting agile processes, Scrum and XP.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
        > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
        > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or
        proprietary
        > to Capital One and/or its affiliates. The information transmitted
        herewith
        > is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which it is
        > addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended
        recipient,
        > you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination,
        > distribution, copying or other use of, or taking of any action in
        reliance
        > upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
        > communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
        material
        > from your computer.
        >
      • Ron Jeffries
        ... Why is this important to you? Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Yesterday s code should be as good as we could make it yesterday. The fact that we know
        Message 3 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:

          > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.

          > They are *not* XP engineering practices.

          Why is this important to you?

          Ron Jeffries
          www.XProgramming.com
          Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
          The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
          is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
        • Jef L Newsom
          I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP engineering practices,
          Message 4 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand
            diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP
            engineering practices, since XP brands them as such, "The engineering
            practices that compose XP." And they *are* just engineering practices,
            too. I personally don't care what they're called -- they're good tools
            to have in your box.

            Jef

            JOEY: ... Go to China. Eat Chinese food.
            CHANDLER: Course there, they just call it "food."


            -----Original Message-----
            From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
            Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:36 AM
            To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)

            On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:

            > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.

            > They are *not* XP engineering practices.

            Why is this important to you?

            Ron Jeffries
            www.XProgramming.com
            Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
            The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
            is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.



            To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
            To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Tobias Mayer
            I care. Because doing XP is a big turn off to many people; often, exactly because of all the hype. But unit testing, or adopting test driven development,
            Message 5 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              I care.  Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often, exactly because of all the hype.  But unit testing, or adopting test driven development, or automating the build process, or improving one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a slice at a time, as it were.  So yes, it is important for developers to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded the branding.  That way they can be discussed on their own merits.  Don't throw away history for the sake of marketing.
              Tobias (not a brand fan)
               

              Jef L Newsom <jef@...> wrote:
              I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand
              diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP
              engineering practices, since XP brands them as such, "The engineering
              practices that compose XP." And they *are* just engineering practices,
              too. I personally don't care what they're called -- they're good tools
              to have in your box.

              Jef

              JOEY: ... Go to China. Eat Chinese food.
              CHANDLER: Course there, they just call it "food."


              -----Original Message-----
              From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
              Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:36 AM
              To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)

              On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:

              > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.

              >   They are *not* XP engineering practices.

              Why is this important to you?

              Ron Jeffries
              www.XProgramming.com
              Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
              The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
              is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.



              To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
              To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
              Yahoo! Groups Links






            • woynam
              Because in many organizations, if you mention the word XP , you ll have the door shut in your face. If you talk about utilizing proven engineering practices,
              Message 6 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
                have the door shut in your face.

                If you talk about utilizing proven engineering practices, possibly
                adopted piecemeal when necessary, you may be allowed to continue talking.

                Mark

                --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
                <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
                >
                > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
                >
                > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
                >
                > > They are *not* XP engineering practices.
                >
                > Why is this important to you?
                >
                > Ron Jeffries
                > www.XProgramming.com
                > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
                > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
                >
              • Stephen J. Bobick
                ... Maybe because they associate XP with catastrophic destruction and ashes (but no Phoenix). I wonder where they would get such an idea from? ;-) -- S
                Message 7 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  >From: woynam <woyna@...>
                  >Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
                  >have the door shut in your face.

                  Maybe because they associate "XP" with "catastrophic" destruction and "ashes" (but no Phoenix).

                  I wonder where they would get such an idea from?

                  ;-)

                  -- S
                • Jef L Newsom
                  It s dysfunctional all the way down in some organizations. Refactoring == No forethought Pair Programming == Half-productive || Incompetent when solo
                  Message 8 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It's dysfunctional all the way down in some organizations.

                    Refactoring == No forethought
                    Pair Programming == Half-productive || Incompetent when solo
                    Collective Ownership == No individual accountability
                    Test-driven design == cowboy code slinger
                    ...

                    Either way, it's a lot of work.


                    -----Original Message-----
                    From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of woynam
                    Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 2:24 PM
                    To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)


                    Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
                    have the door shut in your face.

                    If you talk about utilizing proven engineering practices, possibly
                    adopted piecemeal when necessary, you may be allowed to continue
                    talking.

                    Mark

                    --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Ron Jeffries
                    <ronjeffries@X...> wrote:
                    >
                    > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
                    >
                    > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
                    >
                    > > They are *not* XP engineering practices.
                    >
                    > Why is this important to you?
                    >
                    > Ron Jeffries
                    > www.XProgramming.com
                    > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
                    > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                    > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
                    >







                    To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@...
                    To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                    scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...
                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                  • Ron Jeffries
                    ... I don t know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just come out against XP, while I, who actually do support XP, suggested that the term wasn t
                    Message 9 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 3:30:43 PM, Stephen J. Bobick wrote:

                      >>From: woynam <woyna@...>
                      >>Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
                      >>have the door shut in your face.

                      > Maybe because they associate "XP" with "catastrophic" destruction and "ashes" (but no Phoenix).

                      > I wonder where they would get such an idea from?

                      I don't know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just
                      come out against XP, while I, who actually do support XP, suggested
                      that the term wasn't ideal for most listeners.

                      Most peculiar, Mama.

                      Ron Jeffries
                      www.XProgramming.com
                      Hope is not a strategy. -- Michael Henos
                    • Tobias Mayer
                      Embrace paradox. T. Ron Jeffries wrote: ... I don t know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just come out against XP,
                      Message 10 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Embrace paradox.
                        T.

                        Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...> wrote:
                        On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 3:30:43 PM, Stephen J. Bobick wrote:

                        >>From: woynam <woyna@...>
                        >>Because in many organizations, if you mention the word "XP", you'll
                        >>have the door shut in your face.

                        > Maybe because they associate "XP" with "catastrophic" destruction and "ashes" (but no Phoenix).

                        > I wonder where they would get such an idea from?

                        I don't know, because Tobias, who introduced the term, has just
                        come out against XP, while I, who actually do support XP, suggested
                        that the term wasn't ideal for most listeners.

                        Most peculiar, Mama.

                        Ron Jeffries
                        www.XProgramming.com
                        Hope is not a strategy. -- Michael Henos


                        To Post a message, send it to:   scrumdevelopment@...
                        To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@...



                      • Ron Jeffries
                        ... Look, two ducks! Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake
                        Message 11 of 26 , Dec 1, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 6:06:02 PM, Tobias Mayer wrote:

                          > Embrace paradox.

                          Look, two ducks!

                          Ron Jeffries
                          www.XProgramming.com
                          Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire.
                          He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to
                          light - Howard Roark (The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand)
                        • kipkruide
                          ... wrote: Solution seems simple then does it not, don t use the term xp, after all it is the results that count. Though in my peculiar world of humour it
                          Message 12 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Mayer <tobyanon@y...>
                            wrote:

                            Solution seems simple then does it not, don't use the term xp, after
                            all it is the results that count.

                            Though in my peculiar world of humour it would be fun to tell the
                            execs they've been doing xp for the last year, just to see the look on
                            their faces.

                            >
                            > I care. Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                            exactly because of all the hype. But unit testing, or adopting test
                            driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                            one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                            sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                            slice at a time, as it were. So yes, it is important for developers
                            to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded the
                            branding. That way they can be discussed on their own merits. Don't
                            throw away history for the sake of marketing.
                            > Tobias (not a brand fan)
                            >
                            >
                            > Jef L Newsom <jef@i...> wrote:
                            > I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand
                            > diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP
                            > engineering practices, since XP brands them as such, "The engineering
                            > practices that compose XP." And they *are* just engineering practices,
                            > too. I personally don't care what they're called -- they're good tools
                            > to have in your box.
                            >
                            > Jef
                            >
                            > JOEY: ... Go to China. Eat Chinese food.
                            > CHANDLER: Course there, they just call it "food."
                            >
                            >
                            > -----Original Message-----
                            > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
                            > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:36 AM
                            > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)
                            >
                            > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
                            >
                            > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
                            >
                            > > They are *not* XP engineering practices.
                            >
                            > Why is this important to you?
                            >
                            > Ron Jeffries
                            > www.XProgramming.com
                            > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
                            > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                            > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > To Post a message, send it to: scrumdevelopment@e...
                            > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
                            scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@e...
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > SPONSORED LINKS
                            > Scrum
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                            >
                            >
                            > Visit your group "scrumdevelopment" on the web.
                            >
                            > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > scrumdevelopment-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            Service.
                            >
                            >
                            > ---------------------------------
                            >
                          • Steven Gordon
                            I like to use the term agile software development. It avoids both the turn offs and brand name issues. It also affords a little more freedom to adapt to the
                            Message 13 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I like to use the term agile software development.
                               
                              It avoids both the turn offs and brand name issues.  It also affords a little more freedom to adapt to the specific project and cultural context.
                               
                              I still acknowledging borrowing whatever makes sense in any paricular situation from XP, Scrum, Lean, RAD, MDA, etc. (even if they borrowed it from something else).

                               
                              On 12/2/05, kipkruide <nlv14041@...> wrote:
                              --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Mayer < tobyanon@y...>
                              wrote:

                              Solution seems simple then does it not, don't use the term xp, after
                              all it is the results that count.

                              Though in my peculiar world of humour it would be fun to tell the
                              execs they've been doing xp for the last year, just to see the look on
                              their faces.

                              >
                              > I care.  Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                              exactly because of all the hype.  But unit testing, or adopting test
                              driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                              one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                              sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                              slice at a time, as it were.  So yes, it is important for developers
                              to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded the
                              branding.  That way they can be discussed on their own merits.  Don't
                              throw away history for the sake of marketing.
                              > Tobias (not a brand fan)
                              >
                              >
                              > Jef L Newsom <jef@i...> wrote:
                              > I was wondering the same thing. Is there a concern that the brand
                              > diminishes the value somehow? The simple fact is that they *are* XP
                              > engineering practices, since XP brands them as such, "The engineering
                              > practices that compose XP." And they *are* just engineering practices,
                              > too. I personally don't care what they're called -- they're good tools
                              > to have in your box.
                              >
                              > Jef
                              >
                              > JOEY: ... Go to China. Eat Chinese food.
                              > CHANDLER: Course there, they just call it "food."
                              >
                              >
                              > -----Original Message-----
                              > From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                              > [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
                              > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:36 AM
                              > To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
                              > Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)
                              >
                              > On Thursday, December 1, 2005, at 10:34:06 AM, woynam wrote:
                              >
                              > > I will keep repeating this until the day I die.
                              >
                              > >   They are *not* XP engineering practices.
                              >
                              > Why is this important to you?
                              >
                              > Ron Jeffries
                              > www.XProgramming.com
                              > Yesterday's code should be as good as we could make it yesterday.
                              > The fact that we know more today, and are more capable today,
                              > is good news about today, not bad news about yesterday.

                            • Ilja Preuss
                              ... To me, a practice being an XP practice just means that it is part of what XP teams do. It doesn t mean that the practice didn t exist before XP. What it
                              Message 14 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                                > I care. Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                                > exactly because of all the hype. But unit testing, or adopting test
                                > driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                                > one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                                > sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                                > slice at a time, as it were. So yes, it is important for developers
                                > to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded
                                > the branding. That way they can be discussed on their own merits.
                                > Don't throw away history for the sake of marketing. Tobias (not a
                                > brand fan)

                                To me, a practice being an XP practice just means that it is part of what XP
                                teams do. It doesn't mean that the practice didn't exist before XP.

                                What it might well mean is that the practice was far less well known before
                                it became part of the "XP brand", that it therefore gets connected to XP by
                                many people. Frankly, I'm not sure that a mostly unknown practice is less
                                hard to propagate than a hyped practice.

                                With XP, people don't like to try Pair Programming because it's part of the
                                "XP hype". I'd wager that without XP the same people wouldn't want to try it
                                because they'd never have heart about someone doing it at all. I'd even
                                wager that in many cases the *real* reason for the rejection of the practice
                                is something else. Blaming XP might just hold you from addressing the real
                                causes.

                                Cheers, Ilja
                              • Tobias Mayer
                                ... A good point, and possibly true in many cases. However, the introduction of we should try pair-proramming because it is one of the 12 XP practices and we
                                Message 15 of 26 , Dec 2, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Ilja wrote:
                                  > With XP, people don't like to try Pair Programming because it's part of the "XP hype". I'd wager that without XP the same people wouldn't want to try it because they'd never have heart about someone doing it at all. I'd even wager that in many cases the *real* reason for the rejection of the practice is something else. Blaming XP might just hold you from addressing the real causes.
                                   
                                  A good point, and possibly true in many cases.  However, the introduction of "we should try pair-proramming because it is one of the 12 XP practices and we should be doing XP" (or words to that effect), is probably less useful than an aproach like: "let's remove these cubicle walls so we can communicate more effectively".
                                   
                                  In my experience, a group of good developers in a shared workspace, will pair program, maybe not 8-hours a day, but enough of the time for it to be beneficial.  It is a natural way to work providing (and this is the key thing) that the culture around them supports - no, encourages risk and failure.  I believe a lot of the resistance to PP is pride, which of course stems from fear.  The fear is that you'll see I don't know something.  I'll be exposed.  My guard will be down, my bonus will be affected...
                                   
                                  Creating a culture where failure is not only tolerated but celebrated is a better starting point, to my mind, than saying "let's do XP now".
                                   
                                  Tobias


                                  Ilja Preuss <preuss@...> wrote:
                                  scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                                  > I care.  Because "doing XP" is a big turn off to many people; often,
                                  > exactly because of all the hype.  But unit testing, or adopting test
                                  > driven development, or automating the build process, or improving
                                  > one's refactoring practices (etc.) well, those things usually make
                                  > sense to people - and they are willing to do them - adopting XP a
                                  > slice at a time, as it were.  So yes, it is important for developers
                                  > to know that these practices are older than XP, that they preceded
                                  > the branding.  That way they can be discussed on their own merits.
                                  > Don't throw away history for the sake of marketing. Tobias (not a
                                  > brand fan)       

                                  To me, a practice being an XP practice just means that it is part of what XP
                                  teams do. It doesn't mean that the practice didn't exist before XP.

                                  What it might well mean is that the practice was far less well known before
                                  it became part of the "XP brand", that it therefore gets connected to XP by
                                  many people. Frankly, I'm not sure that a mostly unknown practice is less
                                  hard to propagate than a hyped practice.

                                  With XP, people don't like to try Pair Programming because it's part of the
                                  "XP hype". I'd wager that without XP the same people wouldn't want to try it
                                  because they'd never have heart about someone doing it at all. I'd even
                                  wager that in many cases the *real* reason for the rejection of the practice
                                  is something else. Blaming XP might just hold you from addressing the real
                                  causes.

                                  Cheers, Ilja


                                • Greg Akins
                                  ... In my experience, a group of good developers in a shared workspace, will pair program, maybe not 8-hours a day, but enough of the time for it to be
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Dec 3, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment


                                    Tobias Mayer <tobyanon@...> wrote:
                                    Ilja wrote:
                                    >
                                    In my experience, a group of good developers in a shared workspace, will pair program, maybe not 8-hours a day, but enough of the time for it to be beneficial.  It is a natural way to work providing (and this is the key thing) that the culture around them supports - no, encourages risk and failure.  I believe a lot of the resistance to PP is pride, which of course stems from fear.  The fear is that you'll see I don't know something.  I'll be exposed.  My guard will be down, my bonus will be affected...
                                     
                                    I would love to pair more... But have never been luck enough to be in a shop where anyone else is interested.  However, I find that if I'm just willing to ask other developers to help me work through certain tasks, they're always willing to sit with me for fairly long periods of time. 

                                    My experience with that convinces me more that pair programming is a great direction.  Because in every case, I and the other programmer worked through issues more efficiently that either of us would have done individually.

                                    Speaking to your point about fear and pride.  I think that removing the "pair" stigma, and working with developers that don't have "difficult" egos, combined with open offices and lots of communications makes pairing a natural progression for good programmers even if they don't realize they're doing it.
                                  • Ilja Preuss
                                    ... Well, yes, of course. I just don t see how calling Pair Programming an XP practice could hold anyone from doing exactly that... Confused, Ilja
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Dec 5, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > A good point, and possibly true in many cases. However, the
                                      > introduction of "we should try pair-proramming because it is one of
                                      > the 12 XP practices and we should be doing XP" (or words to that
                                      > effect), is probably less useful than an aproach like: "let's remove
                                      > these cubicle walls so we can communicate more effectively".

                                      Well, yes, of course. I just don't see how calling Pair Programming an "XP
                                      practice" could hold anyone from doing exactly that...

                                      Confused, Ilja
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.