Meta-Agile 2006: How much detail do you guys want to see?
So you’ve probably noticed that some of my posts from the con are fairly focused, just touching on the most important points from the session, while others are massive brain-dumps of just about every word said.
My question to you: Which is better?
I tend to think that there’s value in both, in certain circumstances. The braindumps have the benefit of being comprehensive, but the downside is that no sane person is going to sit down and read one of those braindump posts from beginning to end. At best they’re going to skim, but probably not even that.
I like the summaries because they do give me a chance to pick the points I think are most valuable, and the points I’m most interested in taking back to our team. But they take considerably more time, and they lose a lot of the detail.
What do you guys think? More braindumps? More summaries? How about all the detail of a braindump, but broken apart into bite-sized posts? What would you find most useful?
July 26th, 2006 at 6:44 am
I like the braindump - mostly because sometimes what you think is important is not the most interesting point to me. But then I have a different focus than you do