I am in an interesting situation. Our development organization is
split across four geographic locations across North America, most of
the branch groups having been aquired. My local team (the most recent
aquisition) has been using TDD and some other aspects of XP for some
time and have been very effective with it. The other teams are much
more used to BDUF approaches and are not as successful.
We managed to put together a technical leadership team (officially an
"architecture team") and are now trying to address a number of
problems in the code and process. Naturally, I am pushing for an agile
approach, and had assumed that the others were amenable to it, but
simply uncertain how to go about it. I was mistaken. A recent comment
from one of the more vocal members:
> I don't think you get the performance/modularity/decrease in config that we
> need by incrementally changing something. Refactoring without a clear
> architectural goal is just polishing a turd.
> Remember, GIGO - polished, naturally.
> You seem to be saying that as we incrementally refactor, the architecture
> will appear from the process. I don't believe this is the case (never
> witnessed such an event, nor heard of one).
Any thoughts on how I go about making the case here? Or am I simply
wrong in assuming that we can refactor to a good architecture without
extensive documentation and review?
To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ad-free courtesy of objectmentor.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/extremeprogramming/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
