This is Jbrains's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jbrains's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jbrains
Recent Activity
I feel uncomfortable calling this a "hand-off", but I understand what you mean, and it matches the way I like to work. It matters most to me to be able to ship a working and sufficient version of a feature before all the refactoring has finished. This has more to do with having the "attitude" of Continuous Integration (see James Shore's article) than anything to do with refactoring as such. This creates a delicate balance between a willingness to refactor enough (of the "Clean the Kitchen as you go" variety) and a willingness NOT to let refactoring act as a barrier to shipping a working, sufficient feature. Unfortunately, this will create more endless arguments about "done" and "done done" and all that nonsense -- I hope, only for a while. :)
Toggle Commented Jan 16, 2013 on Refactoring is Sloppy at Michael Feathers
I didn't know that such a thing existed, nor could I possibly imagine its purpose.
1 reply
The board cannot possibly have the same level of diversity as the membership it represents, just like no group of 9-12 people can possibly represent the same leve of diversity as a group of 10,000 people from which it is drawn. I don't think this is controversial. I agree that the board isn't as diverse as it could be, but it cannot possibly (and I mean that literally) be even within one order of magnitude as diverse as the membership it represents. That's just numbers. I can tell you that the board has actively sought volunteers from further away, but as the board continues to struggle for relevance, it has a harder time holding on to European board members. You can ask previous European board members why they chose not to stand again for election, but I have a few ideas. I agree that they haven't achieved much diversity, but I don't think it's for lack of trying. I really don't like the idea of artificially requiring diversity -- it simply doesn't match my philosophy -- but it might help in this case. What might also help is going beyond superficial complaining towards encouraging this group to do what you want, rather than making specious (even wrong!) accusations about what they're doing. What if a European or African interested in joining the board reads this and decides, "No; Jurgen says they're a crappy organisation. I won't bother." One key part of your reasoning still doesn't work. You wrote that because it is an organisation of global membership, its board of directors isn't geographically diverse enough. But that's impossible. I agree, though, that if one claims to present a geographically diverse slate of candidates, but then don't, that that merits some criticism, as you've done here, but even you mention that you think the board could do good work, even if all the members live in the same city.... so I'm left confused. Your words confuse the membership of the Alliance with the membership of the board. That's the error in reasoning. The board cannot, under any circumstance, be as diverse as the membership at large. To hold the board to that standard is unfair. On a more emotional note, I find it sad that you prefer to infer bad faith where so little exists. Unless something radical has changed in the past two years -- and it's mostly the same people I served with, so I doubt it -- the board's lack of diversity comes from two main sources: the typical problems that come with geographically distributed teams, and a relative lack of purpose and focus, which doesn't pull hard enough on people to overlook the practical annoyances of participating on the board. (As for sloppy communication, I agree, but I believe they're trying.)
1 reply
Let's see... you know what you're doing, you know why you're doing, you know the alternatives, you're prepared to be shown wrong, you're prepared to change the code back to the previous idiom if it proves necessary... nope, nothing reckless about that.
I don't intend to defend the board of the Agile Alliance, but when I see someone try to make a point, but make an astounding error in reasoning in the process, I have to fight my reflex to chime in. In this case, my reflex has won. I don't understand the relationship between the geographical makeup of the board of the Agile Alliance and the geographical makeup of the members-at-large of the Agile Alliance. It seems to me that Europeans, Africans, Asians can all join the Agile Alliance without having a fellow citizen -- either of the country or the region -- on the board of directors. Given that board positions are volunteer positions, I imagine that the members of the board of directors benefit personally from their service on the board. They might have noble or ulterior motives. I saw nothing in my two years on the board that suggested any attempt to restrict board membership on the basis of geography. On the contrary, the board tried to expand its reach by volunteering to hold meetings in Europe even when it seemed financially unsound to do so. Unfortunately, it makes practical sense for board members to live within a narrow band of time zones for conference calls and within short flight distances for face-to-face meetings. Given that the epicenter of the group remains Oregon, USA, one would expect the membership to concentrate in the Americas. Typical feedback loop, no? So while I, too, question the Agile Alliance as a significant force in the agile community beyond conference organising services, I feel honor-bound to hold you to a higher standard than this sloppy reasoning, Jurgen. You know better.
1 reply
This is why I don't run a low-margin business. A small shift in the winds and you lose too much.
1 reply
I saw a similar effect once I stopped responding to email as soon as I could. I let it pile up, give trusted people an urgent channel, and simply don't respond as soon as I can. It works great.
Toggle Commented Nov 13, 2011 on Followup on the EMail Experiment at PragDave
Definitely Primitive Obsession here: #class_name one day wants to be a method on FullyQualifiedMethodName. Not soon, mind you, but one day.
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2011 on Finessing Away Errors at Michael Feathers
I sponsored it when it started! That's the best I could do this year.
1 reply
This sounds like another instance of "delegate routine decision-making down". I don't see much of anything surprising about it.
1 reply
Another point for clear goals and a clear business model. Without them, one chases every rabbit, catches perhaps a few and only by luck, and ends up exhausted.
Toggle Commented Mar 7, 2011 on Just Say No at Agile Coaching
1 reply
Jbrains is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 7, 2011