Hello, Gary. I'm so confused ... On Friday, October 13, 2006, at
11:39:26 PM, you wrote:

> Quoting Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@...>:

>> And what's the what? Running, tested, deployed, features. Or so it
>> seems to me.
>>
>> Capisce? Agree a bit? A lot?

> Let's assume that our VP asks 50 people to deliver running, tested,
> deployed, features every week. The only thing that they know how to
> do is write PL/I code alone in their cube for however long it takes.
> How do they get from A to B?

> Let's remember that we can't write anymore PL/I. How do they get from
> zero to B?

Exactly as they did. The only difference I'm suggesting is that if
the VP talks in terms of results, not means, the team will learn XP
and whatever else because it will help them meet their objectives,
not because they are told they must learn XP. XP becomes a tool for
accomplishment, not an end in itself.

Note that I'm only talking about the mandating of Agile, since
that's the topic of the thread. I asked the OP, oh so long ago, what
his executive would get from mandating XP.

I believe that most people who would mandate XP have some other
result in mind, like faster delivery, better code, whatever. My
suggestion is that they ask for what they want, and offer XP and
similar techniques as tools to accomplish what is needed. To impose
XP/Agile is to tell people how to do the details of their work. It
won't necessarily produce any particular result. To ask for the
results needed, it seems to me, is a more direct request, and is
likely to be less offensive to a developer, because it doesn't call
his skills so directly into question.

If the boss says "pair program", it's pretty easy to say "I vant to
be alone". If the boss says "deliver working software monthly, in
Java", it's pretty hard to say "I don't want to deliver."

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Accept your conditions, but not your fate. -- Rod Walsh & Dan Carrison