Re: Summing up and moving on (I hope)

Hi Stefan,

Flexible work schedules are an important Benefit in many companies here in
the U.S..  I haven't managed XP teams yet so I can't contribute directly to
your question, but I can note that Flex has caused some team issues in my
past in a "traditional" development environment.  I hadn't thought about
this possible clash until you raised it.  I'm glad you did.  It will be
interesting to find out if / how folks have managed around it in an XP
environment.

Best regards,
Bill
.
Stefan Steurs wrote.

> Hi,
>
> One question I have in relation to Pair Programming (perhaps I
misunderstand
> how to organise it).
>
> In our organisation there is a lot of flexibility for working hours.  Some
> people start at 7h00 am, some at 11h00 am, some finish around 15h30, some
> work till 20h30.
>
> Are their hard constraints in pair programming that pairs always have to
> work the same working hours?  How does one arrange that if there is no
"core
> time".
>
> The reason why we don't have hard requirements in "core time" is mainly
the
> traffic situation but also because of different social situations of
> families.  People have to take kids to school and with the traffic
situation
> are unable to start before 9h30 am.
>
> I'm very much interested in pair programming and proposing it for a
project
> but I don't see how to make it fit if the requirements to be a pair are
> "hard".
>
> Any ideas on this?
>
> How do you sell pair programming if you don't want to touch the flexible
> arrangements that people have to start/end the working day as they see fit
> (as long as they can account for the nr of hours per week they have to
> work).
>
> Additionally we also have schemes with reduced working hours.  Some people
> work 80%, 90% or have alternatively long and short weeks.
>
> Regards, Stefan Steurs.
>
> P.S.: I also have some question about evolutionary design vis-a-vis
> requirements to keep archives and legal obligations on being able to probe
> past data?  Perhaps for another thread.  It relates to "do you have
backward
> compatibility problems when you have evolutionary design and how do you
> address them"?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Arien Malec [mailto:arien_malec-/[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 6:42 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [XC] Summing up and moving on (I hope)
> > Ron --
> >
> > Can you say more here? When I look at the XP pratices, the
> > ones that strike me
> > as "extreme" (and most tend to set people off) are:
> >
> > 1) Evolutionary design (Simple Design + Refactoring + no
> > design lookahead)
> > 2) Pair programming
> > 3) Collective Ownership
>
>
> ____
>
> This message and any files transmitted with it are legally privileged and
intended for the sole use of the individual(s) or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
by reply and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Any
unauthorised use or disclosure of the content of this message is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful.
>
> Nothing in this e-mail message amounts to a contractual or legal
commitment on the part of EUROCONTROL unless it is confirmed by
appropriately signed hard copy.
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the sender.
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/NhFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/