|
 |
08 August 2003 |
Darren Hobbs sez that agile means being ready to ship (literally, shrinkwrap and shelve up) whatever work you've done at any point throughout the project. Guards against the risk of the project being cancelled, though arguably if something is ready to go at all times and that thing meets some of the project goals, the project probably won't get whacked. Also: possible risk of not making sufficient progress in fear of breaking the product?
Looking at "agile" as it relates to the team rather than the project itself, the other "thing" that is ready to ship when a project is whacked is the team, what it has learned (individually and collectively), and its willingness/interest in going on to the next project and doing good. Not that these are necessarily all positive values: disillusionment and fear of failure are big risks in teams that have had projects cancelled.
See also the Agile Alliance, and its manifesto:
We are uncovering better ways of developing software by doing it and helping others do it. Through this work we have come to value:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
Working software over comprehensive documentation
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
Responding to change over following a plan
That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more.
Worth reading.
4:54:56 PM 
|
|
NG considering extending its in-gallery digital print-on-demand service to accredited print shops around the world. Would the current lack of DRM prevent piracy, and/or allow an effective redress? [via ntk]
4:54:06 PM
|
|
-
Softava's Q12 seems to be the first cousin of Unitap and Fastap before it. Looks like it has privileged button and keypress simplicity at the cost of requiring great digit precision [via MobileBurn]
-
Fingerworks seems to move mouse gesturing away form mouse-and-screen, and place it on the keyboard [via DarrenHobbs]
1:40:25 PM
|
|
Mark Kostabi once said there is no "Duchamp market", because he produced so little work:
Many pseudo-purists will advise you to keep production low and prices high. But Picasso and Warhol are the kings and barometers of the art market because they had huge quantity as well as quality. Duchamp is just as important historically but no one makes an art-market decision based on how the Duchamp market is going. Because there is no "Duchamp market." He produced too little.
Interesting idea, and last year, perhaps, we saw the proof when a Phillips sale of readymades in NY failed to make their estimates:
However, the sale of 14 "readymade" sculptures by the father of conceptual art, Marcel Duchamp, was more problematic. The collection, which Phillips had guaranteed for an estimated $10 million, brought only $5.3 million. After the sale, dealers said there was nothing wrong with the prices realised - Phillips had simply put too high a price on the works.
To bring us up to date, here's Richard Polsky recommending good summer deals in the 2003 art market (no Duchamp).
1:38:48 PM
|
|
© Copyright 2003 rodcorp.
|
|
|
