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

Re: IEEE SWEBOK Is Looking for Reviewers--They Don't Even Mention XP, Agile, etc

Expand Messages
  • Deb
    ... SWEBOK is great. We don t have long though as they want reviewer feedback by 6/30. There s a form on the Alliance page if you want to start it as a
    Message 1 of 37 , Jun 5, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Cohn" <mike@m...> wrote:
      > Deb--
      > ...
      > I think your idea for an Agile Alliance program to contribute to
      SWEBOK is great. We don't have long though as they want reviewer
      feedback by 6/30. There's a form on the Alliance page if you want to
      start it as a program. If you do, count me in as a contributor...

      I feel quite out of my depth on this one, so must decline. I'm also
      involved in starting the Scrum Alliance in Toronto, so my hands are full.

      But I hope someone reading this thread is motivated to do so... it
      could be important for getting Agile into the mainstream. I had supper
      with a colleague last night who just finished a Masters in Comp Sci,
      specialising in Process, and has never heard of Agile. Sigh.

      Anyone feeling like an 'evangelist' today?
    • Mike Beedle
      ... From: Fabian Ritzmann [mailto:usefri@gmx.net] ... Oh, I don t know -- we are still sort of on topic. ... We call tests by the user acceptance tests or
      Message 37 of 37 , Jun 6, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        -----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:
        > 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.

        We call tests by the user "acceptance tests" or ATs.

        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.

        self wrote:
        > The combination is very powerful:
        > * 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,

        Fabian wrote:
        >The principle problem is that provable (and executable)
        >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.

        True. In our view, the need for acceptance tests
        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
        3 things,

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