: we, the stakeholders in this business called PropagateXp, are telling you, the developers of Xp, [that] we experience real resistance just on the name
The name has failed its test, surely? So, XPers, let's see some listening
, followed by some
. That's what you're all about, right?
This reminds me of something I meant to ask a while ago but never got round to: do the XP gurus believe that XpIsTheFinalMethod?
Do they think that the XP practices as described here and as carried out at C3 and else were will never need to change? A lot of the discussion here seems to point in that direction. All the rebuttals to the various challenges seem to say: under none of these circumstances would we change the practices.
Which practices would you change, to what?
Also: Is part of the resistance to XP the fact that XP is not the simplest thing that could possibly work?
here- At least 1/3 of the practices listed in EmbracingChange
(book 1 of the canon) were not there in my original presentation of XP at Chrysler. Many were innovations of the team there, and some came from LifeTech
, and MassimoArnoldi
As for "never need to change", I hear you saying that you don't think we're listening or that we aren't willing to change, where "we" is "those people who are doing XP and are actively talking about it". --KentBeck
P.S. The simplest possible name change is just to call it "XP", and if someone asks you what that stands for you just say "nothing". Kind of like BJ Honeycutt on MASH or USX.
Yeah, that way the X and P can mean whatever you want. eXploratory, eXceptional, eXtra-special, eXtreme, eXtra-terrestrial Patterns Programming
Policy, Procedure, and Philosophy.
Call it TMFKAXP -- the Methodology Formerly Known As eXtreme Programming.