Actually, I used the term second generation to give credit to all the folks that got this whole thing started. I suppose that I could have just started MSF with the XP base that it has and said this is it.
The idea is that second generation agile methods are derived from the first generation methods. Without the work that the XP (the white book) and Scrum (and others) community did, we would have no Green book XP and no Industrial XP. I do not claim that second generation methods are better, just different. You can also generate your own second generation agile process by taking base XP and adapting it according to XP values. It I have violated the values and principles of XP, I believe that this is a valid argument to have. I am less interested in the name ‘Agile 2.0′ or ’second generation’.

Randy

Randy (http://blogs.msdn.com/randymiller/archive/2006/03/23/559229.aspx), what you and other companies are doing is amazing: great ideas + great tools.

My question is: is there ‘value’ enough in this moment to have a second release of agile? Or are we just running an ‘iteration’ + some spikes?

PierG
http://pierg.wordpress.com

Do we need second generation agile revelations with new (fancy) names and commercial tools connected to them? no, we don’t

Do we need more prescriptive methods? no, we don’t or better: we don’t in the Agile space where what is important first of all are values and principles.

Whoever tried to apply an Agile process by the book hasn’t understood the book and the way to explain this, IMHO, is not coining new names, new processes and new tools.

Thanks again for your reply

“My bias in writing XP originally was towards the programmers. That’s my background. That’s who I identified with on teams. However, the past five years have taught me that software development can’t be ‘the programmers and a bunch of other people’ if the goal is excellence. Without balance between the concerns of everyone involved, some people will be unable to contribute to development, and their views are important to the team’s success.”

I talk to a lot of folks out there that need to know that it is OK to include these folks and by the way, they need to know how. I have been a part of the agile community for a really long time and I recall a time when writing a model on the board was considered a crime. Now, I’m throwing done the gauntlet. If you guys want these folks included, evolve and discuss how you would include them. Don’t make people guess.

Randy

Every single Agile approach is supposed to change and adapt based on the unique team/project reality and yes, I have business analysts and testers on my Agile project since before these “new” second generation agile methods told me to do so. Simply they were needed, the team during their retrospectives identified the need and we included them.

Nothing bad about MSF Agile and all the others methods but please don’t call them Agile if their core are techniques and tools because this is not the reason why Agile is a paradigm shift.

Thanks for you comment

P.S.: too bad the link you post has comments disabled…

Randy

In a recent survey, 97% of all respondents indicated that the agile alliance needs to introduce new speakers at their conference instead of having the same s ……