Sentimental meeting: how 17 developers anarchists in 2001 Agile manifesto signed
February 1-13, 2001, seventeen people gathered at The Lodge At Snowbird ski resort on the Wasatch mountain range (Utah, USA) to talk, ski, relax, try to find a common language, and, of course, eat. What was born during this meeting was called Agile Manifesto. Representatives of various development methodologies were assembled: Extreme Programming, SCRUM, DSDM, Adaptive Software Development, Crystal, Feature-Driven Development, Pragmatic Programming, others sympathizing with the need for an alternative documentation management system and the heavyweights of the software development world.
Perhaps it would be difficult to find a collection of organizational anarchists larger than this. What happened as a result of the meeting was symbolically called the manifesto of agile software development, namely Agile Manifesto, and signed by all participants of the meeting. The only doubt related to the term agile in the title came from Martin Fowler , who expressed concern that most Americans do not know how to pronounce this word correctly.
')
Alistair Coburn expressed fears that, in general, reflected the first thoughts of all participants: “I personally did not expect that this group of supporters of various flexible methods would be able to unanimously agree on something essentially”. But after the meeting, he said the following: “I am delighted with the final wording of the manifesto, and also because the others were equally delighted with it. We agreed on all the fundamental points. ”
Calling itself “Agile Alliance”, this group of independent thinkers about the development, and sometimes competitors to each other, agreed and created a Manifesto on flexible software development.
But while the Manifesto designates some basic ideas, there are deeper ideas that move some, but certainly not all, of the Alliance members. At the end of the two-day meeting, Bob Martin (the meeting organizer, author of the development books) joked that the meeting was very “sentimental”. But despite the humorous form, we partly agree with Bob’s thought: everyone felt a great honor to work in a group based on trust and respect for each other, from people promoting an organizational model based on people, cooperation and the types of organization of societies in which we would like to work. In fact, I think flexible methodologies are really based on sentimental ideas about creating good products for clients working in an environment that does more than say that people are its main asset, and it acts as if people were really the most important thing in the process. forgetting the word “asset”. Thus, the rapid rise of interest (and sometimes critics) to flexible methodologies is the sentimental component of values ​​and culture.
For example, I believe that, in the long run, extreme programming has spread and enjoys such interest not because of the very idea of ​​pair programming or refactoring, but because the technique frees the developer community from the “baggage” of dilbert organizations (note Dilbert is the name of the main character and the name of comic comics about office life in different departments of the company).
Kent Beck (developer, creator of the methodology of extreme programming) told the story of how, in the early years of his work, he estimated the task for six weeks of development for two programmers working in a pair. After his manager removed the second programmer at the beginning of the project, Kent completed the project in 12 weeks, which made him feel terrible. The boss, of course, constantly sawed him for slow work over the past six weeks. Kent was depressed because he perceived it as his own failure as a programmer, but then he finally realized that his failure was in fact the failure of his manager, since the initial evaluation of 6 weeks for two programmers was as accurate as possible, and non-compliance with the deadlines occurred precisely because for stereotyped thinking that is so typical of the industry.
And such situations occur every day in marketing, in management, with internal or external customers, and yes, in development. No one wants to compromise, making difficult decisions, which causes unreasonable demands from management. This is a problem not only in development, it is a cross-cutting problem of all dilbert organizations.
In order to succeed in the new economy, to aggressively move forward in the era of e-business, e-commerce and the web as a whole, companies must get rid of their dilbert manifestations and hidden policies. Freedom from a meaningless corporate routine attracts supporters of Agile methods and frightens off old-fashioned begebers who adhere to the traditional approach. Frankly, flexible methodologies scare corporate bureaucrats, at least those who are incredibly satisfied with the process for the sake of the process, presented as an attempt to make a better “client” to show some result to the client in a timely manner “as promised” because excuses end.
Flexible methodologies are not opposed to conventional methodologies. In fact, many of us want to restore confidence in the “word methodology”. We want to restore balance. We use models, but not to add another diagram to the dusty archives of the company. We accept documents, but not hundreds of pages of never read and rarely used volumes. We plan, but recognize the boundaries of planning in a turbulent environment. Those who use extreme development, or SCRUM, or any other flexible methodology, solely because of the loud name, are similar to modern hackers: the first ones for the most part do not know the methodology, the second ones do not know the original meaning of the term “hacker”.
The meeting at Snowbird was the fruit of ideas that originated at earlier meetings of extreme programming advocates and several “outsider” meetings organized by Kent Beck on the River Horn Lodge in Oregon in the spring of 2000. At the meeting on the river, participants voted for a variety of “light” methodologies, but nothing was formally done or accepted. During 2000, a number of articles were written that referred to the category of “light” or “lightweight” processes. A number of such articles included the phrase “lightweight methodologies, such as extreme programming, Adaptive Software Development, Crystal and SCRUM”. In conversations, no one liked this nickname “lungs,” but it seemed to everyone that this was a temporary name.
In September 2000, Bob Martin from Object Mentor in Chicago began to convene another meeting with this e-mail list: “I would like to convene a small two-day conference in January-February 2001 here in Chicago to gather the leaders of all the lightweight development techniques. You are invited. And your opinion is interesting, who else should be invited. "Bob created a wiki site on which discussions raged.
Already at an early stage Alistair Coburn made a proposal that indicated a general disagreement with the term “light”: “I don’t mind when the methodologies are called light in terms of workload, but I’m not sure that I want to be mentioned as“ light participant ” “Easy methods”. It sounds like a bunch of thin, faint-hearted, people who weigh little, trying to remember what day it is. ”
A bitter discussion was also around the gathering place. There was serious concern about Chicago: it was cold in the winter and no entertainment. Snowbird, Utah - cold, but at least you can go skiing, a big fan of which is Martin Fowler. Anguilla in the Caribbean is warm and fun, but it takes too long to get to the road. In the end, the skis won. However, several people, such as Ron Jeffries, would like to gather in a warmer place next time.
We hope that our joint work, like the Agile Alliance, helps others in our profession to think about design, methodologies and organizations in new, more flexible ways. If so, we have achieved our goals.
2001, Jim Highsmith, for the Agile Alliance.
Translation: Christina Streltsova
And this is how Edison explains what agile is:
Publishing support - Edison company, which develops a billing system for providers , as well as develops software for tax reporting over the Internet .
Perhaps it would be difficult to find a collection of organizational anarchists larger than this. What happened as a result of the meeting was symbolically called the manifesto of agile software development, namely Agile Manifesto, and signed by all participants of the meeting. The only doubt related to the term agile in the title came from Martin Fowler , who expressed concern that most Americans do not know how to pronounce this word correctly.
')
Alistair Coburn expressed fears that, in general, reflected the first thoughts of all participants: “I personally did not expect that this group of supporters of various flexible methods would be able to unanimously agree on something essentially”. But after the meeting, he said the following: “I am delighted with the final wording of the manifesto, and also because the others were equally delighted with it. We agreed on all the fundamental points. ”Calling itself “Agile Alliance”, this group of independent thinkers about the development, and sometimes competitors to each other, agreed and created a Manifesto on flexible software development.
But while the Manifesto designates some basic ideas, there are deeper ideas that move some, but certainly not all, of the Alliance members. At the end of the two-day meeting, Bob Martin (the meeting organizer, author of the development books) joked that the meeting was very “sentimental”. But despite the humorous form, we partly agree with Bob’s thought: everyone felt a great honor to work in a group based on trust and respect for each other, from people promoting an organizational model based on people, cooperation and the types of organization of societies in which we would like to work. In fact, I think flexible methodologies are really based on sentimental ideas about creating good products for clients working in an environment that does more than say that people are its main asset, and it acts as if people were really the most important thing in the process. forgetting the word “asset”. Thus, the rapid rise of interest (and sometimes critics) to flexible methodologies is the sentimental component of values ​​and culture.
For example, I believe that, in the long run, extreme programming has spread and enjoys such interest not because of the very idea of ​​pair programming or refactoring, but because the technique frees the developer community from the “baggage” of dilbert organizations (note Dilbert is the name of the main character and the name of comic comics about office life in different departments of the company).
Kent Beck (developer, creator of the methodology of extreme programming) told the story of how, in the early years of his work, he estimated the task for six weeks of development for two programmers working in a pair. After his manager removed the second programmer at the beginning of the project, Kent completed the project in 12 weeks, which made him feel terrible. The boss, of course, constantly sawed him for slow work over the past six weeks. Kent was depressed because he perceived it as his own failure as a programmer, but then he finally realized that his failure was in fact the failure of his manager, since the initial evaluation of 6 weeks for two programmers was as accurate as possible, and non-compliance with the deadlines occurred precisely because for stereotyped thinking that is so typical of the industry.And such situations occur every day in marketing, in management, with internal or external customers, and yes, in development. No one wants to compromise, making difficult decisions, which causes unreasonable demands from management. This is a problem not only in development, it is a cross-cutting problem of all dilbert organizations.
In order to succeed in the new economy, to aggressively move forward in the era of e-business, e-commerce and the web as a whole, companies must get rid of their dilbert manifestations and hidden policies. Freedom from a meaningless corporate routine attracts supporters of Agile methods and frightens off old-fashioned begebers who adhere to the traditional approach. Frankly, flexible methodologies scare corporate bureaucrats, at least those who are incredibly satisfied with the process for the sake of the process, presented as an attempt to make a better “client” to show some result to the client in a timely manner “as promised” because excuses end.
Flexible methodologies are not opposed to conventional methodologies. In fact, many of us want to restore confidence in the “word methodology”. We want to restore balance. We use models, but not to add another diagram to the dusty archives of the company. We accept documents, but not hundreds of pages of never read and rarely used volumes. We plan, but recognize the boundaries of planning in a turbulent environment. Those who use extreme development, or SCRUM, or any other flexible methodology, solely because of the loud name, are similar to modern hackers: the first ones for the most part do not know the methodology, the second ones do not know the original meaning of the term “hacker”.
The meeting at Snowbird was the fruit of ideas that originated at earlier meetings of extreme programming advocates and several “outsider” meetings organized by Kent Beck on the River Horn Lodge in Oregon in the spring of 2000. At the meeting on the river, participants voted for a variety of “light” methodologies, but nothing was formally done or accepted. During 2000, a number of articles were written that referred to the category of “light” or “lightweight” processes. A number of such articles included the phrase “lightweight methodologies, such as extreme programming, Adaptive Software Development, Crystal and SCRUM”. In conversations, no one liked this nickname “lungs,” but it seemed to everyone that this was a temporary name.
In September 2000, Bob Martin from Object Mentor in Chicago began to convene another meeting with this e-mail list: “I would like to convene a small two-day conference in January-February 2001 here in Chicago to gather the leaders of all the lightweight development techniques. You are invited. And your opinion is interesting, who else should be invited. "Bob created a wiki site on which discussions raged.Already at an early stage Alistair Coburn made a proposal that indicated a general disagreement with the term “light”: “I don’t mind when the methodologies are called light in terms of workload, but I’m not sure that I want to be mentioned as“ light participant ” “Easy methods”. It sounds like a bunch of thin, faint-hearted, people who weigh little, trying to remember what day it is. ”
A bitter discussion was also around the gathering place. There was serious concern about Chicago: it was cold in the winter and no entertainment. Snowbird, Utah - cold, but at least you can go skiing, a big fan of which is Martin Fowler. Anguilla in the Caribbean is warm and fun, but it takes too long to get to the road. In the end, the skis won. However, several people, such as Ron Jeffries, would like to gather in a warmer place next time.
We hope that our joint work, like the Agile Alliance, helps others in our profession to think about design, methodologies and organizations in new, more flexible ways. If so, we have achieved our goals.
2001, Jim Highsmith, for the Agile Alliance.
Translation: Christina Streltsova
And this is how Edison explains what agile is:
Publishing support - Edison company, which develops a billing system for providers , as well as develops software for tax reporting over the Internet .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/311400/
All Articles