A post on Twitter claimed that Agile won't work for a heterogeneous team because it's practices were developed by a "bunch of white dudes." While that isn't something I want to believe, the comments indicated that many folks did believe it. When a large body of opinion contradicts my assumptions, I like to pause for thought.
Last week I attended the first XP Day France, where I had been invited to give the keynote. We don't see many attendees from France at the European XP events, which is too bad, because the quality of the presentations was impressive. I'll be blogging separately about some of the things I learned.
We could all benefit by hearing more from these folks and I think they would also benefit from being part of the larger events. I hope some of the folks I heard speak here in Paris will turn up for XP2006. If language is an issue for some, I'd be glad to help.
In a discussion about unit-test suites that take too long to run, Ron Jeffries writes
Splitting the tests into slow and fast is a tradeoff, and it's an easy one. But is it ideal? I think not. I think a better approach might be to split the tests into "likely to provide interesting information" and "unlikely to do so". Then make the ones that are likely, also fast.
This struck me as an interesting point. If the value of a test is seen as the amount of information it is likely to provide and the cost is - at least in part - the time to run it, then the problem of which tests to keep in that "too slow" test run is quite similar to the value versus cost balancing problem we face in XP when we schedule stories into an iteration.