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

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: (unknown)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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.