On Nov 12, 2007 9:01 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2007 10:56 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2007 8:47 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 12, 2007 7:12 PM, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Nov 12, 2007 9:03 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 11/12/07, David Chelimsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 12, 2007 8:09 PM, Pat Maddox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > The difference is that the story is an authoritative > > > > > > > spec of how the system should behave, and the description has no > > > > > > > authority at all. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't have that sense at all. Where do you get that from? > > > > > > > > > > >From the belief that the customer is the ultimate authority on what > > > > > >it > > > > > means for the system to behave acceptably, and the fact that stories > > > > > are customer-facing and specs are developer-facing. > > > > > > > > I totally agree that the customer is the authority - however, the > > > > customer has just as much right to change her mind about a story as I > > > > do about a spec! So why should stories be any more locked down than > > > > specs? > > > > > > Stories represent a bridge between the customer's and the developer's > > > minds, a snapshot of the shared understanding at a given point in > > > time. They do not obviate the need for customer-developer > > > communication. A customer should be able to change her stories as > > > much as she wants, but all but the very simplest changes ought to spur > > > a discussion and reevaluation of assumptions. > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > Also, I don't think this approach poses an obstacle to creative tools > > like a Story Builder. If anything, I'd say it enhances those tools. > > A customer can play with the tool and build various stories without > > committing to anything, building stories and then tossing them away on > > a whim. Then when she finds a few stories she likes - perhaps it's > > very valuable, or 80% of the steps are already done - she can bring > > them up with the developer. That would allow the customer to take a > > more active role in exploring potential stories, and make more > > efficient use of direct customer-developer collaboration because less > > time is wasted sifting through half-hearted stories. > > More violent agreement! Although are we still talking about "should"? > I think that got lost somewhere.
No, I went down a separate path there. I figured that someone could read my thoughts and ask, "But doesn't that mean less flexibility for the customer? She always has to strike up a convo with the developer" to which the reply is "only when she needs to." Pat _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
