From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:5873 comp.lang.c++:14423
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!odi!dlw
From: dlw@odi.com (Dan Weinreb)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: chief programmer team organizations was (c++ vs ada results)
Message-ID: <1991Jun27.193710.11002@odi.com>
Date: 27 Jun 91 19:37:10 GMT
References: <D2150025.ix2lzc@brain.UUCP> <1991Jun26.005625.25608@netcom.COM>
Reply-To: dlw@odi.com
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
In-Reply-To: jls@netcom.COM's message of 26 Jun 91 00:56:25 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1991Jun26.005625.25608@netcom.COM> jls@netcom.COM (Jim Showalter) writes:

   >The concept of an "elite" design team dictating system architectures
   >to a "serf" class of coders is offensive to all but the most uncreative of
   >Ada programmers.

   If everyone tries to design the architecture, the result is not an
   architecture at all--it is a camel.

He did not say that everyone tries to design the architecture.  He said,
and I quote,


				  First, and foremost, all members of the development
  team need to feel that they can make a constructive contribution to the DESIGN
  as well as the more mundane coding effort. This has the effect of getting
  everyone "signed up" to the grand vision of the system. All the programmers,
  designers, and systems engineers have some stake in the quality of the final
  product, because they are allowed to participate throughout the entire life
  cycle. The concept of an "elite" design team dictating system architectures
  to a "serf" class of coders is offensive to all but the most uncreative of
  Ada programmers.

Please note the use of the phrase "constructive contribution" and the
phrase "some stake" and the phrase "signed up".  He did not say that
everybody writes one paragraph of the design document.  He did not say
that everybody has to contribute equally, or that nobody is more
influential than anyone else.  

As I said in a previous posting, the interaction between people on a
project is a human social interaction, and as such is complex and
subtle.  It can't be reduced to simple formulas.  Many goals must be
taken into account, and many things must be balanced against other
things.  I agree strongly with Chuck Shotton's original posting, but I
don't think it conflicts with the idea that in any project involving
many people, it will be possible to identify a smaller subset of key
architects.  However, the meaning of "architect" isn't as simple as
"anybody who isn't an Architect is locked out of the room when the
Design is being Formulated, and the design, Fully Formed and Cast in
Concrete, is handed to him for execution."  In other words, progrmmers
aren't separated into two hard-and-fast groups; it's a matter of degree.
In my experience, that's the best way to organize a software project.