<?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: Schedule Questions: Pair Programming and the PNR Curve</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.pmhut.com/schedule-questions-pair-programming-and-the-pnr-curve/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.pmhut.com/schedule-questions-pair-programming-and-the-pnr-curve</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:37:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mishkin Berteig</title>
		<link>http://www.pmhut.com/schedule-questions-pair-programming-and-the-pnr-curve/comment-page-1#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Mishkin Berteig</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:54:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.pmhut.com/schedule-questions-pair-programming-and-the-pnr-curve#comment-30</guid>
		<description>Mike,  I feel like the options you present in your question at the end actually miss the true point of pairing... which has to do with communication.  I have never seen pairing done in such a way that two people always work together as a pair.  Rather, pairing is promiscuous: people switch pairs frequently throughout a day, iteration or project.  This switching has two communication effects: 1) the human interaction and gradual diffusion of information as people switch pairs 2) helping everyone understand all parts of the work as a result of frequently working on many different things.  From an estimation standpoint, I expect that neither of your two options is quite right.  Rather, the third option is to continue as is with existing estimation and then encourage pairing to increase &lt;strong&gt;communication&lt;/strong&gt;.  Increased communication shows up in a number of different ways, not just efficiency: risk mitigation, accelerated individual and team learning etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike,  I feel like the options you present in your question at the end actually miss the true point of pairing&#8230; which has to do with communication.  I have never seen pairing done in such a way that two people always work together as a pair.  Rather, pairing is promiscuous: people switch pairs frequently throughout a day, iteration or project.  This switching has two communication effects: 1) the human interaction and gradual diffusion of information as people switch pairs 2) helping everyone understand all parts of the work as a result of frequently working on many different things.  From an estimation standpoint, I expect that neither of your two options is quite right.  Rather, the third option is to continue as is with existing estimation and then encourage pairing to increase <strong>communication</strong>.  Increased communication shows up in a number of different ways, not just efficiency: risk mitigation, accelerated individual and team learning etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

