USFA Election 2008 Debate Question #4: Role of Technology and Implementation

[dberke]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

The plan speaks for itself; however, you are probably right: they will shortcut the methodology.

So what I now see is a plan to use the more expensive approach to get to a "Designed by Committee" wishlist represented by sloppy, contradicting, poorly written, unvalidated "requirements" that will be thrown over the wall to some poor developer who will be fingered for the blame in four years when we still don't have a workable system. And WHO believes in the Tech Faerie?

Are we reading the same document?

The way I read the NC proposal, they intend on actually talking to the current users of the system, gathering requirements, figuring out what they need, and then getting all or part of it built, based on priorities and the budget. In my software universe, that's the right way to go about things. Contrast that with the FFC plan, which sounds a lot more like a bunch of uneducated guesses about what the needs are, how much it will cost, how long it will take, and what technology should be used.

Originally Posted by dcmdale

Don't get me wrong. There are many projects that Rational is the only sensible approach and I have led the requirements component of several major projects using Rational. I am a strong advocate of Rational where Rational is appropriate, but it isn't the only legitimate style of requirements gathering.

Again, I didn't see any evidence that they're proposing such a heavyweight process in their plan. I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Can you cite some text in the document that leads you to that conclusion?

Originally Posted by dcmdale

When dberke describes Kalle inviting him to work with the event committee, to shadow XSeed, etc., that is as legitimate a form of requirements gathering as any traditional "heavy" methodology and a lot more likely to produce quality software. I don't believe that Peet started with an exhaustive list of event formats (that he could point to and say, "But *your* event is not covered in the requirements"). Instead, (correct me if I am wrong, Peet), his understanding and product quality have been informed by listening to his customers and rapidly responding to them. Alternative methodologies are not about "not having requirements," but how best to get, validate, and implement requirements. All projects, even the most rigorously spec'ed, come with incomplete requirements.

This is much more in line with what I read into to the document. I think we both would agree that that's the best way to approach this project.

Dan

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by tchwojko

And whether you're responding to the thread, the authors of the plan, or directly to me, you ought to learn about your audience a little more.

One of the benefits of f.net is that I have no clue who you are other than what I can judge from your responses. The authors of the plan, likewise, are only known to me by what they have written. Presumably, that allows for discussion based on merits rather than service stripes. I will only state that I am comfortable enough with my own background that I don't really care who you are.

This is a debate thread for the candidates and I believe that they are reading it. If I have misread or misunderstood their plan or read something into their plan, they can easily correct me. Others may well have the same misunderstanding.

I understand that Peet and dberke are comfortable that they will be able to work with Kalle and certainly dberke's description of his interactions with Kalle seem positive. Hopefully, that will turn out to be the case (whoever wins). The NC Plan does not strike me as being in that vein, but I am open to being informed otherwise.

My concerns expressed here are not limited to just the technology issues, but rather how the NC approach to the technology issue reflects the approach that they might take to making other decisions.

T may have gone off in a wild direction, but frankly, at the moment she is seeming more open to listening and mid-flight correction than the NC Slate.

[tchwojko]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

One of the benefits of f.net is that I have no clue who you are other than what I can judge from your responses. The authors of the plan, likewise, are only known to me by what they have written. Presumably, that allows for discussion based on merits rather than service stripes. I will only state that I am comfortable enough with my own background that I don't really care who you are.

An excellent attitude. I may not have sufficiently communicated the tone I intended. The smiley was there to indicate that I wasn't intending the statement to be all that serious. I'm sorry if it came out wrong. It wouldn't be the first time I've put my foot in my mouth.

This is a debate thread for the candidates and I believe that they are reading it. If I have misread or misunderstood their plan or read something into their plan, they can easily correct me. Others may well have the same misunderstanding.

I understand that Peet and dberke are comfortable that they will be able to work with Kalle and certainly dberke's description of his interactions with Kalle seem positive. Hopefully, that will turn out to be the case (whoever wins). The NC Plan does not strike me as being in that vein, but I am open to being informed otherwise.

Dan replied nicely.

My concerns expressed here are not limited to just the technology issues, but rather how the NC approach to the technology issue reflects the approach that they might take to making other decisions.

I agree with that. The Nominating Committee slate's approach seems to me to be well thought out. The more details come out, the more I'm confident that they have the knowledge and skills to tackle the issues.

T may have gone off in a wild direction, but frankly, at the moment she is seeming more open to listening and mid-flight correction than the NC Slate.

I came to the opposite conclusion. How staunchly did she defend Active in the face of a lot of criticism of the product? Has she yet answered the question of qualifications for the Treasurer?

I thought she got defensive when challenged, and impugned the integrity of several people. Especially when asked tough questions. (If you like, I'll go find the most telling examples for me, but I think you've read the thread.)

[oso97]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

T may have gone off in a wild direction, but frankly, at the moment she is seeming more open to listening and mid-flight correction than the NC Slate.

When your initial ideas for implementation are so wildly off the mark, its easy to make small changes with a dramatic impact. Doesn't mean that they get any better.

I'm more impressed that the NC Slates' position was well-researched, well-thought out and well documented in the FIRST place. And calling Kalle and company not open to listening is... bizzare.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

This is a debate thread for the candidates and I believe that they are reading it. If I have misread or misunderstood their plan or read something into their plan, they can easily correct me. Others may well have the same misunderstanding.

I believe that what you're reading into the plan isn't there.

What Dan and Peet are saying in this thread is EXACTLY how I envision this moving forward, and what I believe the proposal, as written, says.

I don't understand what aspect of the proposal you think indicates a lack of flexibility or that it's a monolithic soul-sucking committee-driven approach. That's certainly not the intent, nor how it will be put into practice.

I think that Dan and Peet have each done a very good job already in this thread of describing how the suggestions in the proposal can, and likely will, be implemented.

-B

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

I believe that what you're reading into the plan isn't there.

Fair enough.

[dcmdale]

Having re-read the proposal (downloading it this time to check the author property as some of the other posters have alluded to), I guess I am satisfied that the approach we have been discussing is the approach intended by the document however I may have (mis)read it or read suspicions into it that weren't there and that my concerns were unfounded.

Apologies if I got too wound up. Too much time in the "code word" world of IT, I guess.