On Sunday, December 26, 2004, at 1:42:54 PM, Gary Feldman wrote: > I don't think "optional" is a word that lawyers feel comfortable > with for contracts, at least not by itself. What are you trying to > accomplish that couldn't be accomplished by merely leaving out the > optional parts entirely, and then doing a separate contract when > they cease being optional?
I believe that of an optional (or might one say variable) scope contract is to permit a range of change as a part of everyday activities. While I'm sure the lawyers would love to be called in on every proposed change to the program, I'm not sure that would be a good thing. An early article by Kent Beck and Dave Cleal is on my site at http://www.xprogramming.com/ftp/Optional+scope+contracts.pdf . Ron Jeffries www.XProgramming.com Reason is and ought only to be the slave of the passions. -- David Hume 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/
