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

RE: Re: [XP] Scrum and XP

Expand Messages
  • Lowell Lindstrom
    ... I agree with Mike. I don t see this happening, nor do I think anyone needs it to happen. ... Mike, here I do not understand. Your response comes across
    Message 1 of 20 , May 15, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > From: "Mike Beedle" <beedlem@...>
      > Subject: RE: Re: [XP] Scrum and XP
      >
      > However, let me focus on your question: "Is Scrum going to
      > end up just being part of XP?"
      >
      > Here is my take: not a chance.

      I agree with Mike. I don't see this happening, nor do I think anyone needs
      it to happen.

      > If anything, XP might eventually adopt a "full Scrum" approach,
      > and eventually get closer to a full gene mix of XP and Scrum.

      Mike, here I do not understand. Your response comes across to me as if you
      feel threatened, as if XP and Scrum are in some kinda of competition with
      each other. Perhaps I am misreading.

      You and Ken have had good experiences using practices from both XP and
      Scrum. I already see XP Teams naturally evolving to practices that greatly
      resemble parts of Scrum (Scrum or scrums, more formal management of stories,
      etc.). They don't call it Scrum because they have never heard of Scrum. I
      don't see why we care whether XP becomes Scrum, Scrum becomes XP, or
      everything is communicated under the umbrella of Agile Best Practices. To
      debate that seems to miss the point, which we all seem to agree is to find
      better ways to deliver business value through software development.

      Lowell

      ====================
      Lowell Lindstrom
      Object Mentor, Inc | www.objectmentor.com | 1-800-338-6716
      lindstrom@...
    • Lowell Lindstrom
      ... I can definitely see wanting to avoid the are you doing XP(Scrum)? debate. But you are doing XP and Scrum, plus MORE. What s interesting is the more
      Message 2 of 20 , May 15, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        > We use a different names for 2 main reasons:
        >
        > 1) out of respect for what XP and Scrum are,
        > because we don't like to say that we do is
        > XP or Scrum and then have someone pointing out
        > that XP or Scrum don't do things like we do.
        >

        I can definitely see wanting to avoid the "are you doing XP(Scrum)? debate."
        But you are doing XP and Scrum, plus MORE. What's interesting is the "more"
        part, that variance, not the XP and Scrum. That is where the attention
        should be. Naming the superset distracts from that.

        > 2) and because we like to remember,
        > "special combinations" that lead to a desired
        > specialized result. In the case of XP@Scrum
        > is business value, and in the case of XBreed
        > is reusability. So we abstract these special
        > combinations with a name rather than tell people:
        >

        Thanks! I understand a little better. Somehow I missed that each had a
        different emphasis. I was under the impression that they were both simply
        different combinations of XP and Scrum.

        The name proliferation seems not agile to me. It introduces unnecessary
        complexity. Surely XBreed projects want business value and XP@Scrum
        projects want reuse. A better approach is to emphasize only what is unique,
        rather than the rename the whole set. What are the set of practices that
        when added to what we know as Scrum and XP lead to higher reuse? That is a
        set of practices that warrants a new label, not the superset. Same with
        XP@Scrum. What are the practices that when added to what we know as Scrum
        and XP deliver higher business value? Call that XP@Scrum (or BVD). If it
        is just XP, with Scrum replacing the planning game, just call it "XP with
        Scrum as the Planning Game" or "Scrum using XP Practices for the software
        development."

        > In terms of names consider this: Monkeys and Humans have
        > a x > 99% overlap in their chromosome and gene sequences,
        > yet, this difference yields to very different animals.
        > However, as much as we are alike I don't think there
        > is any human that likes to be called a monkey

        Nicely phrased! Yes, I am aware that egos are involve here ;-). I just hope
        they can be kept in check enough not to kill the movement. A proliferation
        of differently names sets of methods that are basically identical has that
        risk associated with it.

        Lowell

        ====================
        Lowell Lindstrom
        Object Mentor, Inc | www.objectmentor.com | 1-800-338-6716
        lindstrom@...
      • Linda Rising
        Hi Lowell, I couldn t sell management on: pair programming code ownership actually these were struggles for both management & developers. You know, now that I
        Message 3 of 20 , May 15, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Lowell,

          I couldn't sell management on:

          pair programming
          code ownership

          actually these were struggles for both management & developers.

          You know, now that I think about what was going on at the time. I wasn't selling XP,
          someone else was and maybe he was a bit too enthusiastic...memory fading here.
          Gotta think about this some more...

          I personally was selling Scrum and because of a set of lucky coincidences, I believe
          I had learned how to sell new ideas. In fact, I'm writing a book of patterns about what
          I did -- with my good friend, Mary Lynn Manns.

          I gave a lot of talks locally about both XP and Scrum -- other companies and the
          local ACM/IEEE/SPIN. Most seemed to be more interested in Scrum than XP
          but, of course, I didn't work at all the places represented and usually never followed
          up. The ones I did know about really never used either.

          When I moved to Denmark for a year -- same thing -- gave a lot of talks -- most
          people in Europe had heard of XP but no one knew anything about Scrum. Again,
          they were interested but I'm not sure how many actually implemented either one.

          I'm not feeling like I answered your question, Lowell!!!






          Linda











          Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
          Linda and Ken -

          Can you provide some more detail here? I have had no more trouble getting
          business people engaged in XP than technical. In fact, often the technical
          folks are more difficult given the emotion around pairing.

          Linda, was it the business people that were the obstacle until you switched
          from XP to Scrum or the developers? What did people like about Scrum? Did
          the rocket of Scrum adoption lead to greater acceptance of the XP practices?

          Ken, I would guess that you always lead with Scrum? Have you ever tried to
          introduce XP only. I wouldn't expect so and I don't mean that as a
          challenge. I am just interested in what you have experienced.

          As I stated before, my point here is not to advocate XP over Scrum or vice
          versa. I know one much better than the other, so that is my comfort zone,
          that is where I can improvise with the greatest ease. I am mainly trying to
          learn more about Scrum. I rea d the book to learn how Scrum could supplement
          XP Planning for organizations that are scaling XP and dealing with multiple
          team planning issues. It is still not clear to me why I would bring in
          Scrum rather than simply take the couple of different practices and evolve
          XP in that direction. I see teams doing this anyway who haven't even heard
          of Scrum.

          Thanks for the dialog!

          Lowell

          =============
          Lowell Lindstrom
          Object Mentor, Inc.
          Agile Universe / XP Universe August 4-7, 2002
          http://www.agileuniverse.com
          Beck, Boehm, Humphreys, Cockburn, Jeffries, Fowler talkin' Agile and XP!!!



             From: Linda Rising <risingl@...>

          Maybe that explains why I was never able to sell XP to our company but
          Scrum took off like a rocket!

          Ken Schwaber wrote:

          Lowell,
          The reason why we go through the extra effort to rationalize
          the overlapping names between Scrum and XP is that Scrum terminology is
          more 
          understood, more business natural. It fits with business project and 
          product managers. XP is more OO and engineering-centric and feels alien
          to 
          this audience. It's our way to get agile used with XP engineering
          practices. It eases the
          implementation of XP and allows us to scale XP elsewhere in the
          organization.
          Ken


          ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
          Buy Stock for $4
          and no minimums.
          FREE Money 2002.
          http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/9EfwlB/TM
          ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




        • Linda Rising
          A follow-on thought. At the time I thought that pair programming would provide incredible benefit if we only knew how to implement it. I still believe that and
          Message 4 of 20 , May 15, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            A follow-on thought. At the time I thought that pair programming would provide
            incredible benefit if we only knew how to implement it. I still believe that and I'm
            really, really happy that Laurie Williams has been doing some research to measure
            it. Of course, it doesn't matter what kind of wonderful research you have -- this is
            an emotional issue and everyone always falls back on -- well, that doesn't apply
            here :-)! You gotta get around those deeper issues. It's like finding out what
            customers *really* want -- when they may not know themselves :-)! Interesting
            challenge.






            Linda Rising wrote:
            Hi Lowell,

            I couldn't sell management on:

            pair programming
            code ownership

            actually these were struggles for both management & developers.

            You know, now that I think about what was going on at the time. I wasn't selling XP,
            someone else was and maybe he was a bit too enthusiastic...memory fading here.
            Gotta think about this some more...

            I personally was selling Scrum and because of a set of lucky coincidences, I believe
            I had learned how to sell new ideas. In fact, I'm writing a book of patterns about what
            I did -- with my good friend, Mary Lynn Manns.

            I gave a lot of talks locally about both XP and Scrum -- other companies and the
            local ACM/IEEE/SPIN. Most seemed to be more interested in Scrum than XP
            but, of course, I didn't work at all the places represented and usually never followed
            up. The ones I did know about really never used either.

            When I moved to Denmark for a year -- same thing -- gave a lot of talks -- most
            people in Europe had heard of XP but no one knew anything about Scrum. Again,
            they were interested but I'm not sure how many actually implemented either one.

            I'm not feeling like I answered your question, Lowell!!!






            Linda











            Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
            Linda and Ken -

            Can you provide some more detail here? I have had no more trouble getting
            business people engaged in XP than technical. In fact, often the technical
            folks are more difficult given the emotion around pairing.

            Linda, was it the business people that were the obstacle until you switched
            from XP to Scrum or the developers? What did people like about Scrum? Did
            the rocket of Scrum adoption lead to greater acceptance of the XP practices?

            Ken, I would guess that you always lead with Scrum? Have you ever tried to
            introduce XP only. I wouldn't expect so and I don't mean that as a
            challenge. I am just interested in what you have experienced.

            As I stated before, my point here is not to advocate XP over Scrum or vice
            versa. I know one much better than the other, so that is my comfort zone,
            that is where I can improvise with the greatest ease. I am mainly trying to
            learn more about Scrum. I r ea
            d the book to learn how Scrum could supplement
            XP Planning for organizations that are scaling XP and dealing with multiple
            team planning issues. It is still not clear to me why I would bring in
            Scrum rather than simply take the couple of different practices and evolve
            XP in that direction. I see teams doing this anyway who haven't even heard
            of Scrum.

            Thanks for the dialog!

            Lowell

            =============
            Lowell Lindstrom
            Object Mentor, Inc.
            Agile Universe / XP Universe August 4-7, 2002
            http://www.agileuniverse.com
            Beck, Boehm, Humphreys, Cockburn, Jeffries, Fowler talkin' Agile and XP!!!



               From: Linda Rising <risingl@...>

            Maybe that explains why I was never able to sell XP to our company but
            Scrum took off like a rocket!

            Ken Schwaber wrote:

            Lowell,
            The reason why we go through the extra effort to rationalize
            the overlapping names between Scrum and XP is that Scrum terminology is
            more 
            understood, more business natural. It fits with business project and 
            product managers. XP is more OO and engineering-centric and feels alien
            to 
            this audience. It's our way to get agile used with XP engineering
            practices. It eases the
            implementation of XP and allows us to scale XP elsewhere in the
            organization.
            Ken


            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
            Buy Stock for $4
            and no minimums.
            FREE Money 2002.
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/Ey.GAA/9EfwlB/TM
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






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


            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service .

          • Mike Beedle
            ... Lowell: I disagree. I feel it clarifies the purpose. The problem also is that is not only +more as you point out above, but in many cases is: +more
            Message 5 of 20 , May 15, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
              > > We use a different names for 2 main reasons:
              > >
              > > 1) out of respect for what XP and Scrum are,
              > > because we don't like to say that we do is
              > > XP or Scrum and then have someone pointing out
              > > that XP or Scrum don't do things like we do.
              > >
              >
              > I can definitely see wanting to avoid the "are you doing
              > XP(Scrum)? debate." But you are doing XP and Scrum,
              > plus MORE. What's interesting is the "more"
              > part, that variance, not the XP and Scrum. That is
              > where the attention should be. Naming the superset
              > distracts from that.

              Lowell:

              I disagree. I feel it clarifies the purpose.

              The problem also is that is not only +more as you point
              out above, but in many cases is:

              +more +modifying or specializing something in
              Scrum or XP. For example, there are highly specialized
              Scrum of Scrums in an XBreed environment, we don't
              only care about Product Backlog, but about many
              Backlogs with dependencies. So even when the
              spirit of Scrum survives, the meeting is structured
              around different buckets.

              Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
              > > 2) and because we like to remember,
              > > "special combinations" that lead to a desired
              > > specialized result. In the case of XP@Scrum
              > > is business value, and in the case of XBreed
              > > is reusability. So we abstract these special
              > > combinations with a name rather than tell people:
              > >
              >
              > Thanks! I understand a little better. Somehow I missed
              > that each had a different emphasis. I was under the
              > impression that they were both simply different
              > combinations of XP and Scrum.

              Unfortunately, Ken and I, and the people that we associate with
              are typically on the trenches, so we have had little time
              to explain things better.

              Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
              > The name proliferation seems not agile to me. It introduces unnecessary
              > complexity. Surely XBreed projects want business value and XP@Scrum
              > projects want reuse. A better approach is to emphasize only what
              > is unique, rather than the rename the whole set. What are
              > the set of practices that when added to what we know as
              > Scrum and XP lead to higher reuse? That is a set of practices that
              > warrants a new label, not the superset. Same with XP@Scrum. What
              > are the practices that when added to what we know as Scrum
              > and XP deliver higher business value? Call that XP@Scrum (or BVD).
              > If it is just XP, with Scrum replacing the planning game, just
              > call it "XP with Scrum as the Planning Game" or "Scrum using
              > XP Practices for the software development."

              Unfortunately, there are many modifications so it can't be
              expressed by something as simple as:

              "XP with Scrum as the Planning Game"

              That is a starting point, and in fact, that's more or less
              how XBreed started, but once the focus changed, the sentence
              became a paragraph, the paragraph became a chapter, and
              pretty soon you have something new.

              I suspect the same thing is going on with xp@Scrum.

              Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
              > > In terms of names consider this: Monkeys and Humans have
              > > a x > 99% overlap in their chromosome and gene sequences,
              > > yet, this difference yields to very different animals.
              > > However, as much as we are alike I don't think there
              > > is any human that likes to be called a monkey
              >
              > Nicely phrased! Yes, I am aware that egos are involve here ;-).
              > I just hope they can be kept in check enough not to
              > kill the movement. A proliferation of differently names
              > sets of methods that are basically identical has that
              > risk associated with it.

              Well, I didn't mean to say anything related to egos.

              My point was that simple changes in the meta-architecture of
              a system (genotype) can yield to big changes in the overall
              structure of the instances (phenotype), and that they
              may deserve a different abstraction - a different word.

              Actually, we did discuss "name proliferation" at our initial
              meeting at Snowbird, and we encouraged each other to explore
              and try new things without trying to "unify" things ;-)

              Diversity makes us stronger,

              - Mike


              http://www.hipaaccelerator.com
              We are hiring Java Developers, architects and project managers.
              http://www.e-architects.com

              http://www.xbreed.net
              http://www.agilescrum.com
              http://www.livingmetaphor.org

              http://www.agilealliance.org

              http://www.mikebeedle.com
            • Ken Schwaber
              Lowell, I agree with all of your sentiments. I lead with Scrum because I know it best since I m more of a product manager and project manager at this point
              Message 6 of 20 , May 15, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Lowell,
                I agree with all of your sentiments.

                I lead with Scrum because I know it best since I'm more of a product manager
                and project manager at this point than a developer. I probably couldn't lead
                with XP because of the change management required for the engineering
                practices. This doesn't mean that XP's engineering practices aren't needed!!
                When the engineering practices are weak, as they are at almost IT shops
                doing web development, I recommend XP and have recently been brining in
                buildmasters or scrummasters from ThoughtWorks to implement them for the
                customer while the project is underway.

                I can bring Scrum in and within 1 day have the team developing software,
                "the art of the possible." If their engineering practices are weak, the
                productivity is lower and the bugs are many. As the engineering practices
                improve, so do the increments of functionality. This way XP slips in bit by
                bit rather than being a big "let's study it."

                Ken

                -----Original Message-----
                From: Lowell Lindstrom [mailto:lindstrom@...]
                Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:56 PM
                To: 'scrumdevelopment@yahoogroups.com'
                Subject: [scrumdevelopment] RE: Re: [XP] Scrum and XP


                > From: "Mike Beedle" <beedlem@...>
                > Subject: RE: Re: [XP] Scrum and XP
                >
                > However, let me focus on your question: "Is Scrum going to
                > end up just being part of XP?"
                >
                > Here is my take: not a chance.

                I agree with Mike. I don't see this happening, nor do I think anyone needs
                it to happen.

                > If anything, XP might eventually adopt a "full Scrum" approach,
                > and eventually get closer to a full gene mix of XP and Scrum.

                Mike, here I do not understand. Your response comes across to me as if you
                feel threatened, as if XP and Scrum are in some kinda of competition with
                each other. Perhaps I am misreading.

                You and Ken have had good experiences using practices from both XP and
                Scrum. I already see XP Teams naturally evolving to practices that greatly
                resemble parts of Scrum (Scrum or scrums, more formal management of stories,
                etc.). They don't call it Scrum because they have never heard of Scrum. I
                don't see why we care whether XP becomes Scrum, Scrum becomes XP, or
                everything is communicated under the umbrella of Agile Best Practices. To
                debate that seems to miss the point, which we all seem to agree is to find
                better ways to deliver business value through software development.

                Lowell

                ====================
                Lowell Lindstrom
                Object Mentor, Inc | www.objectmentor.com | 1-800-338-6716
                lindstrom@...



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

                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Brad Appleton
                I wonder if some of this can be addressed using ideas similar to what Alistair used in Agile Software Development and his Crystal Methodologies... It seems
                Message 7 of 20 , May 15, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  I wonder if some of this can be addressed using ideas similar to what Alistair used in 'Agile Software Development" and his Crystal Methodologies...

                  It seems to me that Mike has perhaps found a new "niche" or "family" of methodologies that mix XP and SCRUM together in project-specific ways based on some project-specific parameters for certain tradeoff conditions (optimizing for reuse versus for ???).

                  I wonder where on the spectrum of Crystal methods the particular set of conditions are that lead to this 'family of methods' that has the intersection of SCRUM+XP as its basis? I think it is probably not a problem to have a separate name to identify this "space" rooted at the intersection, and having a name for specific instantiation that is optimized for certain conditions seems fine too so long as it isn't claiming to be a brand new methodology (rather, its a named variation or 'flavor' in this particular 'family' or 'subfamily' within the agile methodology space).

                  We still need names for all these things, they just don't all have to be in the same namespace at the same level of abstraction/granularity :)

                  On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:19:59PM -0500, Mike Beedle wrote:
                  >
                  > Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
                  > > > We use a different names for 2 main reasons:
                  > > >
                  > > > 1) out of respect for what XP and Scrum are,
                  > > > because we don't like to say that we do is
                  > > > XP or Scrum and then have someone pointing out
                  > > > that XP or Scrum don't do things like we do.
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > I can definitely see wanting to avoid the "are you doing
                  > > XP(Scrum)? debate." But you are doing XP and Scrum,
                  > > plus MORE. What's interesting is the "more"
                  > > part, that variance, not the XP and Scrum. That is
                  > > where the attention should be. Naming the superset
                  > > distracts from that.
                  >
                  > Lowell:
                  >
                  > I disagree. I feel it clarifies the purpose.
                  >
                  > The problem also is that is not only +more as you point
                  > out above, but in many cases is:
                  >
                  > +more +modifying or specializing something in
                  > Scrum or XP. For example, there are highly specialized
                  > Scrum of Scrums in an XBreed environment, we don't
                  > only care about Product Backlog, but about many
                  > Backlogs with dependencies. So even when the
                  > spirit of Scrum survives, the meeting is structured
                  > around different buckets.
                  >
                  > Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
                  > > > 2) and because we like to remember,
                  > > > "special combinations" that lead to a desired
                  > > > specialized result. In the case of XP@Scrum
                  > > > is business value, and in the case of XBreed
                  > > > is reusability. So we abstract these special
                  > > > combinations with a name rather than tell people:
                  > > >
                  > >
                  > > Thanks! I understand a little better. Somehow I missed
                  > > that each had a different emphasis. I was under the
                  > > impression that they were both simply different
                  > > combinations of XP and Scrum.
                  >
                  > Unfortunately, Ken and I, and the people that we associate with
                  > are typically on the trenches, so we have had little time
                  > to explain things better.
                  >
                  > Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
                  > > The name proliferation seems not agile to me. It introduces unnecessary
                  > > complexity. Surely XBreed projects want business value and XP@Scrum
                  > > projects want reuse. A better approach is to emphasize only what
                  > > is unique, rather than the rename the whole set. What are
                  > > the set of practices that when added to what we know as
                  > > Scrum and XP lead to higher reuse? That is a set of practices that
                  > > warrants a new label, not the superset. Same with XP@Scrum. What
                  > > are the practices that when added to what we know as Scrum
                  > > and XP deliver higher business value? Call that XP@Scrum (or BVD).
                  > > If it is just XP, with Scrum replacing the planning game, just
                  > > call it "XP with Scrum as the Planning Game" or "Scrum using
                  > > XP Practices for the software development."
                  >
                  > Unfortunately, there are many modifications so it can't be
                  > expressed by something as simple as:
                  >
                  > "XP with Scrum as the Planning Game"
                  >
                  > That is a starting point, and in fact, that's more or less
                  > how XBreed started, but once the focus changed, the sentence
                  > became a paragraph, the paragraph became a chapter, and
                  > pretty soon you have something new.
                  >
                  > I suspect the same thing is going on with xp@Scrum.
                  >
                  > Lowell Lindstrom wrote:
                  > > > In terms of names consider this: Monkeys and Humans have
                  > > > a x > 99% overlap in their chromosome and gene sequences,
                  > > > yet, this difference yields to very different animals.
                  > > > However, as much as we are alike I don't think there
                  > > > is any human that likes to be called a monkey
                  > >
                  > > Nicely phrased! Yes, I am aware that egos are involve here ;-).
                  > > I just hope they can be kept in check enough not to
                  > > kill the movement. A proliferation of differently names
                  > > sets of methods that are basically identical has that
                  > > risk associated with it.
                  >
                  > Well, I didn't mean to say anything related to egos.
                  >
                  > My point was that simple changes in the meta-architecture of
                  > a system (genotype) can yield to big changes in the overall
                  > structure of the instances (phenotype), and that they
                  > may deserve a different abstraction - a different word.
                  >
                  > Actually, we did discuss "name proliferation" at our initial
                  > meeting at Snowbird, and we encouraged each other to explore
                  > and try new things without trying to "unify" things ;-)
                  >
                  > Diversity makes us stronger,
                  >
                  > - Mike
                  >
                  >
                  > http://www.hipaaccelerator.com
                  > We are hiring Java Developers, architects and project managers.
                  > http://www.e-architects.com
                  >
                  > http://www.xbreed.net
                  > http://www.agilescrum.com
                  > http://www.livingmetaphor.org
                  >
                  > http://www.agilealliance.org
                  >
                  > http://www.mikebeedle.com
                  >
                  >
                  > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  > chicago-agile-dev-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >

                  --
                  Brad Appleton <brad@...> http://www.bradapp.net/
                  "Education is the ability to listen to almost anything
                  without losing your temper or your self-confidence."
                  -- Robert Frost
                • Mike Beedle
                  ... Brad: These are interesting thoughts indeed. Much to be worked by present and future agileers, - Mike
                  Message 8 of 20 , May 16, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Brad Appleton wrote:
                    > I wonder if some of this can be addressed using
                    > ideas similar to what Alistair used in
                    > 'Agile Software Development" and his Crystal
                    > Methodologies...
                    >
                    > It seems to me that Mike has perhaps found a new
                    > "niche" or "family" of methodologies that mix
                    > XP and SCRUM together in project-specific ways
                    > based on some project-specific parameters
                    > for certain tradeoff conditions (optimizing for
                    > reuse versus for ???).
                    > I wonder where on the spectrum of Crystal methods
                    > the particular set of conditions are that lead to
                    > this 'family of methods' that has the intersection
                    > of SCRUM+XP as its basis? I think it is probably not
                    > a problem to have a separate name to identify this
                    > "space" rooted at the intersection, and having
                    > a name for specific instantiation that is optimized
                    > for certain conditions seems fine too so long as
                    > it isn't claiming to be a brand new methodology
                    > (rather, its a named variation or 'flavor' in
                    > this particular 'family' or 'subfamily' within
                    > the agile methodology space).
                    >
                    > We still need names for all these things, they
                    > just don't all have to be in the same namespace
                    > at the same level of abstraction/granularity :)

                    Brad:

                    These are interesting thoughts indeed.

                    Much to be worked by present and future agileers,

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