| > building software is so far from building a house that's not really worth comparing I disagree. I think the comparison is between engineering part of building a house, i.e. creating blueprints. The actual "blue collar" work in SW engineering is making sure the whole thing compiles, runs and is tested. > the signatories on the agile manifesto may have done some management but most, if not all, were strong developers Yeah, that's what I am suggesting with my post, maybe it worked for them, but it was later misinterpreted, or they thought that the secret of their success lies elsewhere. > is supposed to change a lot which was the original idea behind software (as opposed to hardware) existing I disagree here. Software is easy to copy first and foremost (you don't need much materials). I think easy to copy does not mean easy to change. For example, DNA sequence is also easy to copy, but difficult to change. (And that's why people wish for rewrites from the ground up.) > agile was always about developers teaching managers how they can manage us effectively I disagree. That implies you have a much bigger problem - useless managers. Managers simply have to understand the domain they are managing (and ideally have hands-on experience). There shouldn't be any "teaching" going on. But I also agree, in a way. I think who needs to listen to SW engineers are product and project managers, that the software is not just a bunch of features to be built, just like a house is not just what you see on the promotional render. That's what my post was about. |