Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.c++,comp.object
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!source
From: source@netcom.com (David Harmon)
Subject: Re: SCRUM and Why the Waterfall Methodology is a Fool's Errand ...
Message-ID: <sourceDItLG2.9M4@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <30AF370B.1AE@vmark.com> <49ffbj$oon@dns1.mci.com> <49fk7a$jc@brtph500.bnr.ca> <RMARTIN.95Nov29024924@rcm.oma.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 1995 19:43:14 GMT
Lines: 13
Sender: source@netcom12.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.smalltalk:31257 comp.lang.c++:162497 comp.object:41625

In article <RMARTIN.95Nov29024924@rcm.oma.com>,
Robert C. Martin <rmartin@oma.com> wrote:
>
>Requirements have always been the least stable part of any project I
>have worked upon.  

I hope this illustrates why some of us have a problem with your previous 
use of the word "stable".  Requirements are the thing upon which 
everything else depends, and thus by your previous definition are 
ultimately "stable".  Yet here we see how false this can be.  We may all 
wish for requirements to be stable, but it doesn't make it so.  Using 
"stable" in that way is quite misleading; there must be some other word 
that means what you mean.  
