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

RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Who the hell is Ron Miller and WHY is he redefining Agile for MSFT?

Expand Messages
  • Brian Kennemer
    An alternative would be to see if it works before declaring it and it s creators the anti-christ. brian kennemer | www.projectified.com endlessly obsessing
    Message 1 of 134 , Oct 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      An alternative would be to see if it works before declaring it and it’s creators the anti-christ.

       

      brian kennemer | www.projectified.com

      endlessly obsessing about microsoft project so that you don't have to

      From: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron Jeffries
      Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:11 PM
      To: scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Who the hell is Ron Miller and WHY is he redefining Agile for MSFT?

       

      Hello, David. On Monday, October 30, 2006, at 10:59:53 PM, you
      wrote:

      > Where is your evidence to show that these methods like AUP, OpenUP,
      > MSF (or FDD for that matter) do not perform as well as Scrum with
      > XP? I don't believe that there is any.

      You're right. There is no evidence whatsoever for MSF, apparently,
      since no one has ever done it.

      Are we to conclude, therefore, that it is just as good until proven
      otherwise? Or would it be somewhat OK to look at it and decide what
      we think based on its visible properties?

      Ron Jeffries
      www.XProgramming.com
      Perhaps this Silver Bullet will tell you who I am ...

    • dnicolet99
      One of the good/bad things about VSTS is its customizability. Good because you can set it up pretty much any way you want. Bad because it s a tremendous hassle
      Message 134 of 134 , Nov 6, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        One of the good/bad things about VSTS is its customizability. Good
        because you can set it up pretty much any way you want. Bad because
        it's a tremendous hassle to customize the thing.

        You can change just about anything - except the way the "work item"
        element is defined, with its built-in concept of ownership. I don't
        know what the best way to handle this is, but my workaround was to
        make "Team" the owner of every work item.

        --- In scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com, Steve Freeman
        <smgfreeman@...> wrote:
        >
        > On 3 Nov 2006, at 14:27, dnicolet99 wrote:
        > > 'We started with the [MFS] Agile template and customized it somewhat.
        > > Out of the box, it had no support for pair programming. Our Microsoft
        > > mentors told us that was because pair programming is specifically an
        > > XP thing, and not generally an Agile thing. Fine, but nearly everyone
        > > in the world who practices Agile development, whether they use XP or
        > > not, uses pair programming. We added a field for a pairing partner,
        > > but the tool still treats every work item as if it were "owned" by one
        > > individual developer. This is consistent with the general mindset
        > > reflected in the design of the data model, that project management is
        > > largely about finding someone to hang when something goes awry down
        > > the line. Definitely not Agile thinking.
        > I think I remember similar issues with Smalltalk/Envy back in the
        > Cretaceous. Our solution then was to have everyone use the same
        > account and annotate the check-in comments. Does VSTS allow you to do
        > that?
        >
        > S.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.