Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Angel is a centerfold. (Score 1) 263

If the photograph was originally taken in a private location, then the person retains more rights to their likeness than they would if it were taken in a public place. In a public place, the person can only restrict sale of an image for commercial (i.e. advertising and advocacy) purposes. In a private place, however, a person must generally give consent to publish regardless of the purpose of publication. Again - in the US.

Comment Re:Jurisprudence (Score 1) 263

In the US, there is essentially no right to personality except in defamation suits. Copyright law would govern, and since there's a person's likeness involved and no formal consent form signed, a lawsuit *could* prevent the photographer from publishing or selling the photos, subject to normal copyright fines. Since some of the images have been found on the Internet, she could also go after him in a private civil lawsuit. But AFAIK there's nothing in US law that says that one person has a right to destroy another person's possessions just because their relationship has ended.

Comment Re:Maybe, maybe not (Score 2) 507

We effectively do without a scrum master. It can be done with an open and communicative team, so long as everyone recognizes the rules of the game and is willing to speak up to guide the process. Product owner buy-in is essential (and a scrum master IMHO an essential backup if the PM is fighting the system); they don't make the system work, but without good backlog management they can make the system break.

Our team succeeds at Agile more than anything else because our developers are respected by management. Our product owners and management have both wanted longer term planning and a more waterfall process because it's easier for them, but we have the ability to push back, and they have the respect to listen.

Comment Re:Yes (Score 2) 507

Management push-back is a tough one and understandable. They want to know where the company is going in a quarter, two quarters, next year. That means big plans, and it means estimating the size of things way in advance. That's something that Agile is specifically designed to avoid - unnecessary advance planning. I think this conflict exists (or should exist) even in the best Agile development shops. The alternative is the ultimate in management short-sightedness - no plan for the future, just get through the quarter. On our team the compromise is doing some one quarter rough-grooming and having our engineering team manager (who was a team member before being promoted) flesh out the more distant epic level grooming with our PM.

Comment Re:Good idea, hard to implement in the real world. (Score 2) 507

Like so many other things, it's very difficult to take an ideal theory and put it into practice in the real world. If your team really understands the ideas behind Agile and you have a good process in place to make it happen, you can have a great deal of success.

Unfortunately, like so many other things in life, most teams don't get it right and they end up failing to some degree or another.

Cannot be restated often enough.

I've worked in a shop that started doing "Agile" development after years of more waterfallish practices. This essentially meant that we started to get customer requests organized in an Agile toolset and then had a sprint planning meeting to negotiate the value of the various requests so that we could start work on them. Standups often took a half an hour for 6 people, including the PM, who unfortunately doubled as the scrum master. It wasn't terribly agile, and it didn't buy us much other than better tracking of issues.

And I work now at a medium sized company that does everything with some variation on Agile methodology (with some Kanban thrown in). We use Agile as the base framework for our development, but we adopt other practices that make sense, and we've agreed as developers (with the PM) on how it works best for us. Standup was 15 minutes this morning for a (largish) team of 9 developers - and that included some non-standup topics that snuck in. Retrospective for a two-week iteration is an hour to 1.5 hours. Planning is also about that long, including tasking - but we have one or more one hour grooming sessions during the iteration to keep our work backlog properly sized and ready to go. We code review each other's work, we communicate openly, and we know what's going on and how our work fits in with the overall product line because of that. It just works, and from a psychological standpoint it's good for morale to see the progress being made.

The difference is in committing to the actual goal of Agile - producing working code in manageable bits while minimizing unnecessary overhead. It's easy to go off the rails by misunderstanding Agile or half-assing it - you just have to get it right.

Comment Re:No. (Score 1) 507

I've found that pretty much anything can be broken down into Agile stories if you do the planning and grooming well, though the definition of "potentially shippable product" might have to slip - or you might have to add in a number of non-shippable "spike" stories in order to get to something useful.

It's a tool, not a religion. Or at least it shouldn't be a religion.

Comment Re:No. (Score 4, Interesting) 507

DING!

If by saying QA/QC isn't completed you mean that unit and functional testing is missing, then the developer is not done. If you have problems with the developer not writing these tests, then be sure that "Definition of Done" includes some acceptable target level of unit/functional testing.

If on the other hand you get to the end of a story and accept it only to find out that it doesn't meet your QA standards, then you as a product manager haven't done your job in properly validating the story prior to acceptance; add to your own procedures the time required to properly validate the story for acceptance. Maybe you need a testing resource to do this if you are overworked as a product manager - an assistant product manager, even.

Agile is as good as you make it.

Comment "Best" depends on intent (Score 2) 200

On the conversion side... If you're taking in PDFs created by a layout/page design program, then you're not likely to get good satisfaction converting them and storing them as something other than PDFs. OTOH, if you're taking in a lot of documents created in an office suite, and they have collaborative notes, and you need to retain the documents for legal purposes, then converting them to PDF is going to lose data.

On the future use side: PDFs are slower to render and search than most formats; they're harder to alter, but they're more reliably rendered than any other format. Office documents offer richer content and easy editing; their layout may vary depending on the output device (good and bad), and office document formats seem to change a bit more than other document types. HTML with CSS is good, and probably now stable enough that future clients will render something similar - but it's not PDF for reliable formatting, nor office docs for feature richness; editing tools for HTML aren't all that intent on preserving what came before. LaTeX is a reliable formatter wrapped around text-centric documents, but it's not something most people will be able to use and edit.

Each document type has its reasons for being - you'll need to decide why you need to store your documents and what you need them for in the future. Retaining the original document along with a text conversion stored and indexed in a search engine may be your best bet - or not.

Slashdot Top Deals

In the future, you're going to get computers as prizes in breakfast cereals. You'll throw them out because your house will be littered with them.

Working...