Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc
- I looked up SWEBOK, and at http://www.swebok.org/, under "Project
Overview" I found information that seems to make room for Scrum...
under "Advanced and Research". I know, it's been around a long time
now... but "they" don't know that, right?
I'd think the existence of the Agile Alliance lends it credence (for
those who require such). Would it be beneficial to make contribution
to SWEBOK an Agile Alliance program?
Some additional reflections:
I'd think that the Scrum entry in SWEBOK would be a relatively short
one, because it's based on values and principles, with very few
prescribed practises. Wouldn't this be typical of Agile methodologies
in general - to remain Agile, we must remain open to whatever
practises fulfill the values and principles most economically? Also,
we must remain open to incorporate practises required by a given
organisation, as long as they don't conflict with the values and
principles. Please, someone correct me if I've oversimplified this.
On the page noted above, I found this on PMI:
"The Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge is now an IEEE
- -----Original Message-----
From: Fabian Ritzmann [mailto:usefri@...]
> Need to bring this back on topic for this list. :-)Oh, I don't know -- we are still sort of on topic.
> --- Fabian Ritzmann <usefri@...> wrote:We call tests by the user "acceptance tests" or ATs.
> XP as I understand it uses unit tests and system
> tests, unit tests for unit testing and system tests for
> whatever the users want to test, including quality
> aspects like performance, reliability, etc.
I think this is a valid definition across XP and
Scrum but I don't know if other agile methods call
them the same way.
> The combination is very powerful:Fabian wrote:
> * test as _specification_ from Test-First, and
> * program as executable _specification_ from
> functional programming
> Both strategies drive development more into the
> quantifiable _what_ space, much more than worthless
> "exhaustive requirements documents" or "models".
> Perhaps, this is what we need to concentrate in
> software architecture -- in patterns that tell us
> _what_ to program and that are executable,
>The principle problem is that provable (and executable)True. In our view, the need for acceptance tests
>specifications don't help if the specification is wrong.
>And we all know that specifications always change,
>that's why we do Scrum or another Agile development
>method. Of course that shouldn't keep anybody from
>improving the way we are programming these days.
conducted through people-2-people interaction
never goes away for the exact reasons you list
(and regardless the programming styles used):
- making sure that the specification is not wrong
- making sure that we keep up with changes
for the specification
- making sure that the user experience is
comfortable i.e. timely, convenient, beautiful, etc.
It is just easier, faster and even more economical
in some paradigms of programming to do the above