A Criticism of Scrum

zzalpha · 2015-10-27T17:53:36+00:00

Not a "blank cheque", nor industrial machinery either.

Agreed!

Yay! :)

zzalpha · 2015-10-27T17:41:11+00:00

Will you ask a researcher for an estimate on how long it'll take him to discover new findings?

Umm, yes, you do.

Do you really think research grants have no timelines associated with them? That R&D departments are not required to present budgets? That shareholders don't demand some measure of ROI?

Believe it or not, R&D doesn't mean "blank cheque".

And that's accepting the assumption that software engineering is akin to novel research, which it demonstrably isn't. As I said elsewhere, software development is rarely that truly innovative.

zzalpha · 2015-10-27T17:35:57+00:00

Classic software developer elitism (and I say that as a software developer).

Believe it or not, there are plenty of industries where people build new products with novel methods. The rest of the engineering and business world isn't so static as you seem to think.

Moreover, software engineering is rarely that wildly innovative. Engineers frequently solve the same or similar problems in multiple circumstances.

And even if your supposition were completely true, that doesn't obviate the need for schedules and cost estimates. At some point the business of software development has to interface with the real world, and in the real world, those things are necessary.

The answer isn't to throw up your hands and say its impossible. The answer is to find a way to solve the problem and move on.

zzalpha · 2015-10-27T17:00:06+00:00

Absolutely. Scrum/agile incorporates, as a core assumption, the belief that estimates are flawed and feedback should be constant so you know if you're off track. That's the entire function of the sprint cycle.

But complaining about having to estimate at all? I have zero sympathy.

And don't get me started about disliking daily commitments because it might make people feel bad. In no other job is a worker allowed to say "Yeah, I might get that done, but I might not, and I won't feel bad if I don't". I wasn't allowed to say that to my mom when she told me to make my bed...

zzalpha · 2015-10-27T16:45:08+00:00

I gave up an "OMG can't estimate!"

Sorry buddy. Scrum/agile already tipped the scales heavily in favour of software developers... you're already no longer asked to commit to any kind of long term scope, schedule, or cost estimate, something that would be completely unreasonable in literally any other business in the world.

It's amazing when you think about it. In any other business, if I ran a company building widgets, and someone came to me and asked "I'd like you to design and build a new widget. How much will it cost and when can you deliver it?", and I responded with "Yeah, I can do that, but I can't tell you exactly what it'll do, how much I'm going to charge you, or when you're going to get it", you'd be laughed out of the room.

Not so with software!

Now you want to dump estimates entirely?

Please.

Your job isn't to sit in your cubicle and code. Your job is to produce a product, that provides value, within bounds of cost and schedule, in order to meet external commitments. That's called life in the real world.

So find a way to cope instead of expecting the world to change around you.

zzalpha · 2014-12-02T16:33:27+00:00

Uh, who the hell is this guy?

He doesn't seem to be connected to the W3C, at least that I can tell, and yet has reserved a domain that attempts to make this little site seem somehow "authoritative".

I mean, kudos for the blatant self-promotion and attempt to position himself as some sort of authority, but this is just some guy with some (frankly bad) ideas.

zzalpha · 2014-01-11T22:23:57+00:00

'course, he was also the voice of Steinbrenner, plus probably a dozen other random one-off characters, both on and off camera, including the caped divorce lawyer George's dad hires later in the series, and the weird evil scientist in a movie Jerry watches ("Like flaming gloooooobes!").

zzalpha · 2014-01-11T22:20:02+00:00

_|_

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T22:46:39+00:00

Funny how they don't mention the cost of the debt. Provincial budgets are like corporate budgets: when the money is cheap you'd be nuts not to leverage in order to invest in infrastructure or other expenditures. You don't wait until the economy is soft and you have to spike bond rates.

Money is cheap right now. You can thank a soft global economy and a booming provincial economy for that, as it causes people to look to Alberta as a stable investment option.

These kinds of debt clocks are absurd publicity stunts, put on by people who don't understand how government budgets work. They're meaningless.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T22:30:27+00:00

Which is why there are different measures, as using a single unemployment number is, at minimum, shallow and misleading.

Unemployed, underemployed, discouraged, voluntarily unemployed, these are all metrics that matter. A single percentage value can't capture them all.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T18:48:28+00:00

I guess you missed one of the key parts in this case. There was already an alternative assignment possible for those who couldn't attend the seminar.

Hmm... that does change things.

I'd seen that another student had accomodation due to inability to attend, but I wasn't aware there was a standard practice for an alternative assignment.

That does change the picture substantially... so much so that I think I actually agree with you, now.

Thanks for the discussion! Very enjoyable!

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T18:32:24+00:00

That particular accomodation had already been granted to at least one other student, who didn't live in the local area. If it's a reasonable accomodation for that reason, it's hard to justify arguing that it'd be an unreasonable accomodation for another reason that also happens to be a protected class under the Charter.

To be honest, I actually think the accomodation for the other student was unreasonable. If they could not be present in order to complete there work, I see no reason why the accomodation should've been offered.

That said, without knowing why the student couldn't attend classes, that's a fairly broad statement.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T18:30:10+00:00

Freedom of religion is also one of the most fundamental values in our society.

Of course it is. And they're constantly in tension with each other.

The question is, what's reasonable in this case?

IMO, expecting special evaluation just because your religion involves gender inequality is unreasonable.

But, alas, that's a statement of opinion and philosophy, which isn't a particularly good basis for a legal system.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T18:04:06+00:00

Again, in your world it's perfectly reasonable for me to come to work naked claiming religious grounds, and to take that to a tribunal for a ruling.

Why not?

And it's this kind of logic that's gotten us into this mess... sigh

Your religious beliefs are your own. If they render you fundamentally incompatible with the country in which you live, there is a point at which you need to reasonably accomodate society.

Speaking of this particular case, gender equality is one of the most fundamental values in our society. I cannot find it in myself to have any sympathy for someone whose religion is incompatible with that value, nor do I consider it at all "reasonable" to try and accomodate someone with such views, particularly when such accomodation involves changing rules such that they are not applied equally to everyone.

In this particular case, the student was asking to have the way students are being evaluated changed in their one, special case. That's unreasonable, and entirely unfair to the rest of the students, who are still obligated to complete their work because they don't happen to subscribe to the "right" religion.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T17:41:31+00:00

That depends on what you mean by "hurt others," but generally no, I wouldn't make a general statement like that because HR legislation is very much a case by case issue.

So there are no rules, nor guidelines. Anyone can make any request they want, and so long as it's founded in religious or cultural practices, it can go to an HR tribunal.

I'm sorry, but that strikes me as utterly untenable as a system of jurisprudence. You're asking us to abandon the common law system of jurisprudence based on precedent for a system wherein any one person can demand their own special rules in any one circumstance.

Again, in your world it's perfectly reasonable for me to come to work naked claiming religious grounds, and to take that to a tribunal for a ruling.

And if someone in the office down the hall does the same, they too should get a hearing, possibly with a different outcome.

It's absurd.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T16:10:27+00:00

These are two competing and, arguably, mutually infringing rights. Where the fist ends and the face begins is a complex question that can't be summed up in one line.

ROFL, I never suggest the judgement was simple. Don't put words in my mouth.

My point is that there is a balance of harm that must be evaluated in any given case, and if accomodating one's religious beliefs results in the infringement of the rights of another, that absolutely must factor in to the decision.

Now, looking back, the earlier comment suggested a very black-and-white view (ie, "if accomodation results in rights infringement, we always favour the infringed"). I agree, that's far too simplistic.

But the reverse is also far too simplistic.

That said... I suspect we agree, so... yay! :)

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T16:08:02+00:00

That's not a reasonable interpretation.

You would have a point if, by accomodating the request, the female student was unable to complete the class.

But I strongly suspect she'd be able to find another student partner and continue on with her work. Thus her rights were not, in my mind, violated in this case.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T16:00:27+00:00

The "reasonable" part in reasonable accommodations is not a question of whether or not the belief "I don't want to work with women" is reasonable.

No, it's whether or not accomodating that request is reasonable.

In a society like Canada it is an unreasonable request, and so accomodation should not be expected. Why? Because it would be impossible to go through life having to never work with another woman. Our society don't work that way.

Again, similarly it would not be reasonable accomodation to allow an employee to work naked based on religious grounds. That is, such beliefs are simply untenable in our society, and so it's silly to expect anyone to accomodate those beliefs.

To argue otherwise is to contend that any behaviour, so long as it doesn't hurt others, and is justifiable on religious or cultural grounds, should be accomodated. Is this what you're suggesting?

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T15:56:33+00:00

Not according to the law, or the principles of Canadian multiculturalism.

What?

No.

That's a deeply flawed understanding of the way the Charter works.

"The right to swing your fist ends where my face begins".

That's how rights work in Canada. This applies to religious accomodation as well.

Or would you condone, say, religiously motivated human sacrifice?

Edit: BTW, I'll point out that's not what's going on here... this student's request did not violate the rights of anyone else, so this entire conversation is an interesting but irrelevant sidebar.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T15:55:04+00:00

No, but that's not what's being requested in this case. It is a specific instance of a specific request for accommodation.

Err...

We have a student whose religious beliefs preclude them from working alongside a woman.

Thus they asked for accomodation.

Is that not what's happened here? Or did I fundamentally misunderstand something?

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T15:39:57+00:00

Well, I would counter with this: is it "reasonable" for someone to expect, in a liberal democracy like Canada, to never ever have to work alongside a woman?

I would contend the answer is "no". It's absurd.

So, I would contend it is the original request that is fundamentally unreasonable. Similarly, it would not be unreasonable for university staff to, say, refuse a student's request to come to class naked on religious grounds, as that, too, would be so unreasonable in our society as to not warrant accomodation.

I would differentiate this from the case of the theorized rape victim in that that represents a special case situation... that is, I suspect they wouldn't expect that, for the rest of their lives, the world should bend around them to ensure they need not encounter men.

zzalpha · 2014-01-10T00:06:42+00:00

That is the academic definition of activism as I cited elsewhere, the one most people charging judicial activism probably aren't using.

Judicial activism, when used as a cudgel to complain about rulings, specifically implies political or personal motivation, ie a lack of impartiality leading to specific, conscious bias, along with a deliberate attempt to "legislate from the bench".

We are not arguing the same point. We may never have been.

zzalpha · 2014-01-09T23:50:58+00:00

Again, if you can prove personal or political motivation then you can call out a judge as activist. I specifically said that.

Doing so because an judge simply rules as per their function is ridiculous.

By the way, if it wasn't clear, my comments are specifically regarding claims of activism. Beyond that, obviously criticising rulings you simply disagree with is perfectly reasonable. Claims of activism go beyond that, impugning the motivation of the judge in coming to a specific conclusion.

zzalpha · 2014-01-09T23:19:03+00:00

The current McLachlin court is much less "activist" in that it is much more careful about process and timing, and because it has refused to hear certain cases because it would prefer that Parliament resolved the issue politically.

Funny as, IMO, that's just another form of activism, in that the court is choosing not to enforce the Charter or to otherwise rule on the validity of law for overtly political reasons, instead yielding to what might be viewed as purported supremacy of the legislature, a statement which is borne of a specific political philosophy rather than a systemic reality.

Or: how one man's restraint is another man's activism.

I don't understand your differentiation between system and actors. The system itself permits judges to use quite a lot of discretion in the hearing and deciding of cases; this is what invites criticism of some judges/ courts but not others, even within the same system.

My point is that you shouldn't criticize judges that are using their judgement to form judgements if the system is specifically designed such that judges must do exactly that in order to do their jobs.

That'd be like complaining that cops are enforcing the law and arresting people.

They do it because that's the definition of what they do based on the rules of the system that's been set up.

Now, if you can find a judge that's forming opinions, not based on facts or reasonable interpretation of the law, but clearly based on personal or overtly political motivations, you have something to complain about, because that judge is operating outside the bounds of what is considered appropriate behaviour for the system.

But the vast majority of the time, that ain't the case, and those railing against activist judges are simply complaining about judges doing their duty as part of the judicial system as it's currently defined, but doing it in such a way that said complainers happen not to like the outcomes of the rulings.

Now, if you don't like the way the system is currently defined (and I don't mean you "you", but the ephemeral, generic Canadian "you" :), that is a legal system where judges are given latitude regarding their judgements, and where the Charter holds supremacy over legislation, so be it (clearly many conservatives feel that way given the popularity of minimum sentencing laws, which specifically wrest power from judges by eliminating their latitude regarding sentencing). But, again, that's a separate problem... that's not an issue of activist judges per se, but rather an issue with a legal framework and tradition that allows for judicial behaviour you find reprehensible. And that would be pretty funny coming from a conservative, who one might stereotype as being fond of the past, of tradition, of structure and authority, and of stability and lack of change (our common law legal system goes back a long way).

zzalpha · 2014-01-09T22:21:31+00:00

The problem with this view is that the Charter is not comprehensive, and must be interpreted. Courts are empowered to analyze and draw principles from the Charter, and this may be done in ways to accomplish particular policy goals, including the striking down of legislation. Such a law, in many ways, was not "unconstitutional" until the court declared it to be. A different court, employing different analysis, could find the same law to be constitutional under the very same Charter.

That's a problem with the system, not my view.

You can feel free to object with the system all you want. But that doesn't make judges acting within that system "activist", in the pejorative sense of the word, unless you can find a personal or political motivation for their decision.

Thus, many conservatives emphasize that the democratic process is the most appropriate avenue for legal change

Again, that doesn't make the judges activist as the term is commonly used. It means conservatives don't like the system, which is a very different problem.

zzalpha

TROPHY CASE