This post was a criticism of a post by Paul Gerrard that has been withdrawn. Hence, I withdraw my criticism.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, May 3rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm and is filed under Software Testing and Quality.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Another point to demonstrate that Paul, IMHO, really just doesn’t get it; I posted the response below to Paul’s Blog — which he has failed to approve to be displayed.
“Ok, so you don’t agree with Jonathan - how, exactly does that make him pretentious?
It’s a blog, he’s sharing his perspectives and experiences. I know Jonathan, I know that he has made a personal commitment to speak *only* from experience. So his experiences are different than yours. What’s wrong with that?
I also think that you’re taking a lot of statements out of context. For instance, you criticize Jonathan for claiming that Agile is mainstream. Mainstream need not refer to the “most commonly used or implemented practice.” It can also refer to a “commonly referenced philosophy.” So maybe in one sense, Agile isn’t mainstream, but in another, it certainly qualifies. Additionally, I assure you that it qualifies in both senses with regard to Jonathan’s experiences.
I find Jonathan’s perspective valuable. He has now given me words to use and references to help me draw my own inferences based on my experiences. I find that to be both honorable and professional, not pretentious.
If Jonathan were making some attempt to get others to agree with him, or stating that “this is fact because I say so”, that would be pretentious, but I don’t see any of that. I think Jonathan is very clear that these are *his* thoughts and *his* current way of expressing those thoughts. I think that is exactly what you are doing here in your blog. I praise you both for it.
In fact, I also find your counter-position valuable and only wish there were some more links to go with your references. From where I sit, I don’t see where your position and Jonathan’s aren’t complimentary. I think you are actually saying very similar things from a different perspective.
I dunno, maybe you are using the tone to create a buzz (you certainly caught my attention). I just don’t like to see individuals flamed for sharing their experiences and personal opinions.
Please, attack the concepts — we need all of the well informed debate we can get in this industry — but don’t flame the person for having the guts to make their observations and interpretations public.
Anyway, that’s just *my* position. Pretentious? Controversial? Argumentative? Self-Righteous? Unpopular? Maybe, but whatever it is, it is mine and I’m willing to share it with others and I think that matters.”
This is a difficult one. I understand Paul’s anger but it was also a breath of fresh air reading Jonathon’s article. A long time ago I stopped calling myself agile and just stuck with the term “professional software engineer�. Maybe I am too a post agilist.
I think Paul’s response may be a reaction to all the BS that surrounds Agile. And there is a lot, don’t you agree? I find many posts on forums to be quite sickly and just not helpful. Although angrily stated, Paul does make some interesting points. It’s a shame he just didn’t make them in an independent manner i.e. without the context of Jonathon’s very good article. And without attacking him by accusing him of writing like a thirteen year old philosopher. Where I come from we would say that was well out of order. And it might also earn you a punch in the nose.
Attacking someone like this is actually a very cruel thing to do. We aren’t all writers, and some of us are not great programmers or engineers. However, we, as a community, are striving to improve ourselves (I know my writing isn’t brilliant, but I have the right to express myself). Bullying someone into not writing something by attacking their style is not only mean but rather authoritarian.
So, unfortunately, any of Paul’s legitimate message is lost is the fury. And people are drawing battle lines, picking sides. Maybe these two need to talk. If I were Paul I would have emailed Jonathon before publicly slagging him off. But hey, that is only my opinion.
I will think about these two articles more carefully now.
May 3rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Jim,
Another point to demonstrate that Paul, IMHO, really just doesn’t get it; I posted the response below to Paul’s Blog — which he has failed to approve to be displayed.
“Ok, so you don’t agree with Jonathan - how, exactly does that make him pretentious?
It’s a blog, he’s sharing his perspectives and experiences. I know Jonathan, I know that he has made a personal commitment to speak *only* from experience. So his experiences are different than yours. What’s wrong with that?
I also think that you’re taking a lot of statements out of context. For instance, you criticize Jonathan for claiming that Agile is mainstream. Mainstream need not refer to the “most commonly used or implemented practice.” It can also refer to a “commonly referenced philosophy.” So maybe in one sense, Agile isn’t mainstream, but in another, it certainly qualifies. Additionally, I assure you that it qualifies in both senses with regard to Jonathan’s experiences.
I find Jonathan’s perspective valuable. He has now given me words to use and references to help me draw my own inferences based on my experiences. I find that to be both honorable and professional, not pretentious.
If Jonathan were making some attempt to get others to agree with him, or stating that “this is fact because I say so”, that would be pretentious, but I don’t see any of that. I think Jonathan is very clear that these are *his* thoughts and *his* current way of expressing those thoughts. I think that is exactly what you are doing here in your blog. I praise you both for it.
In fact, I also find your counter-position valuable and only wish there were some more links to go with your references. From where I sit, I don’t see where your position and Jonathan’s aren’t complimentary. I think you are actually saying very similar things from a different perspective.
I dunno, maybe you are using the tone to create a buzz (you certainly caught my attention). I just don’t like to see individuals flamed for sharing their experiences and personal opinions.
Please, attack the concepts — we need all of the well informed debate we can get in this industry — but don’t flame the person for having the guts to make their observations and interpretations public.
Anyway, that’s just *my* position. Pretentious? Controversial? Argumentative? Self-Righteous? Unpopular? Maybe, but whatever it is, it is mine and I’m willing to share it with others and I think that matters.”
–
Scott Barber
President & Chief Technologist, PerfTestPlus, Inc.
Executive Director, Association for Software Testing
http://www.perftestplus.com
http://www.associationforsoftwaretesting.org
“If you can see it in your mind…
you will find it in your life.”
May 10th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Jim,
This is a difficult one. I understand Paul’s anger but it was also a breath of fresh air reading Jonathon’s article. A long time ago I stopped calling myself agile and just stuck with the term “professional software engineer�. Maybe I am too a post agilist.
I think Paul’s response may be a reaction to all the BS that surrounds Agile. And there is a lot, don’t you agree? I find many posts on forums to be quite sickly and just not helpful. Although angrily stated, Paul does make some interesting points. It’s a shame he just didn’t make them in an independent manner i.e. without the context of Jonathon’s very good article. And without attacking him by accusing him of writing like a thirteen year old philosopher. Where I come from we would say that was well out of order. And it might also earn you a punch in the nose.
Attacking someone like this is actually a very cruel thing to do. We aren’t all writers, and some of us are not great programmers or engineers. However, we, as a community, are striving to improve ourselves (I know my writing isn’t brilliant, but I have the right to express myself). Bullying someone into not writing something by attacking their style is not only mean but rather authoritarian.
So, unfortunately, any of Paul’s legitimate message is lost is the fury. And people are drawing battle lines, picking sides. Maybe these two need to talk. If I were Paul I would have emailed Jonathon before publicly slagging him off. But hey, that is only my opinion.
I will think about these two articles more carefully now.
Hope you are well mate, Jamie.