Formal Informal Reviews

Some are less than delighted with the request to have InformalReviews be an XpFreeZone ....

I went to a review the other day, but it wasn't very productive. All the useful remarks I could make were considered out of bounds. -- Unsigned

That sounds like it was one of many forms of FormalReviews?. Was it? Were there rules about what could be said and how and by whom and when? Did the rules seemed aimed to minimize conflict, or to limit the discussion to a precise topic (e.g., finding problems rather than positing solutions)? Did you (and/or the other attendees) feel comfortable with all the other reviewers in the room or did you feel like you had to walk on eggshells to avoid ego/esteem issues? -- BDA

Actually, I took it to be a subtle commentary on censorship. Kind of wished I had written it. -- RonJeffries

That possibility occurred to me, but I chose to give the author the benefit of the doubt in thinking they might be trying to stay focused on the subject of InformalReviews. As for censorship, please express those concerns on XpFreeZone if you are inclined to voice them. -- BDA

Brad, both possibilities are true and the unknown author intended both. When you post to Wiki you are offering your material for InformalReviews. That is just what Wiki is. Wiki is just not a medium for FormalReviews?. -- Unsigned

Fair enough, (and the response I gave applies to both meanings) but then can we make an effort do that without the kind of competition that pits XP versus all other InformalReviews. I think that's already been hashed out ad nauseum on another page and I see little benefit from repeating it. Is it possible we can still be respectful of people's wishes without necessarily being formal reviews? -- BDA

Perhaps comparison isn't competition. -- RonJeffries

I wholeheartedly agree. Comparison need not be competition. It is certainly possible (even preferable) to compare and contrast different points of view. If, however, the comparison goes to the extent of at least seeming to declare the other view to be mostly wrong most of the time and/or suggest its own view is inherently superior, then it starts to tread the slippery slope from comparison to competition. Consider the the following two fictitious examples loosely based upon certain recent events:

Separate InformalReviews waste too much time and give little if any benefit. It is far better to do PairProgramming and UnitTests. There is simply no suitable place to perform them, and even if there were, they'd add no value whatsoever. We don't need 'em because our UnitTests and FunctionalTests catch as much as we need. No muss, no fuss, and its fun too.
It sounds like some kinds of InformalReviews are quite useful in various situations and help eliminate much of the time consuming ceremony of their more formal counterparts in such cases. But I think separate InformalReviews may not be readily applicable to XP when PairProgramming and UnitTests are being carried out in such small and tight iteration cycles. There seems to be no suitable point to inject the review into the cycle without seriously interrupting the flow-state.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me like #1 above looks like its trying to shoot down InformalReviews altogether, without making much room for the fact that they may be incredibly effective for a great many situations, though not necessarily all of them. OTOH #2 above explicitly acknowledges this possibility and that there are issues within a particular context that make InformalReviews less applicable in that context. Nothing is being lambasted, no one has to feel defensive and/or escalate the tone of the discussion, and each seems to make room for the other without declaring it outright wrong. (No muss, no fuss, and its fun too ;-)

Is this an unreasonable thing to ask people to keep in mind that their passion for their own ideas might still leave room for other viewpoints? Or that they might perhaps make an effort not to come across like they want to pick a fight when the other contributor has no desire to fight? -- BDA

Short person-to-person conversation removed. -- RonJeffries