<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Please don&#8217;t chase Waterfalls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 09:11:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eugene Nizker</title>
		<link>http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60/comment-page-1#comment-12203</link>
		<dc:creator>Eugene Nizker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60#comment-12203</guid>
		<description>Thank you for re-stating what I&#039;ve said in more direct terms.  And thanks a lot for picking both main ideas of that post:  

1. A deterministic vs. partially-deterministic nature of our profession.

2. A &quot;Heisenberg uncertainly principal&quot; of IT systems (as far as I remember, I used analogy with Planck&#039;s constant that quantitatively defines this principle, but I think your phrasing is better).

Truly,
Eugene Nizker</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for re-stating what I&#8217;ve said in more direct terms.  And thanks a lot for picking both main ideas of that post:  </p>
<p>1. A deterministic vs. partially-deterministic nature of our profession.</p>
<p>2. A &#8220;Heisenberg uncertainly principal&#8221; of IT systems (as far as I remember, I used analogy with Planck&#8217;s constant that quantitatively defines this principle, but I think your phrasing is better).</p>
<p>Truly,<br />
Eugene Nizker</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dan</title>
		<link>http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60/comment-page-1#comment-6463</link>
		<dc:creator>dan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 08:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60#comment-6463</guid>
		<description>@thomas - 
Thanks much for the Zed Shaw link will try and digest that essay tomorrow.  Sometimes people over complicate things -- I wish they wouldn&#039;t.
-d</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@thomas &#8211;<br />
Thanks much for the Zed Shaw link will try and digest that essay tomorrow.  Sometimes people over complicate things &#8212; I wish they wouldn&#8217;t.<br />
-d</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60/comment-page-1#comment-6461</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Dec 2007 07:32:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.danmcweeney.com/60#comment-6461</guid>
		<description>Completely agree with you. I like Zed Shaw&#039;s point of view which differentiates between two type of projects: 1) Implementation 2) Invention (http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/c2i2_hypothesis.html). Implementation projects can be successfully done using a waterfall approach but inventions should be done in an iterative fashion. This maps nicely with you &quot;Roll out&quot; and &quot;I think I need...&quot; examples.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Completely agree with you. I like Zed Shaw&#8217;s point of view which differentiates between two type of projects: 1) Implementation 2) Invention (<a href="http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/c2i2_hypothesis.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.zedshaw.com/essays/c2i2_hypothesis.html</a>). Implementation projects can be successfully done using a waterfall approach but inventions should be done in an iterative fashion. This maps nicely with you &#8220;Roll out&#8221; and &#8220;I think I need&#8230;&#8221; examples.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
