Notes from SIG lunch 10/13

[ned.h...@agileaustin.org]

These are just my notes, others may have drawn very different notes!
Ned

Architecture in an Agile context:
WF v Agile fights stem from a poor understanding of Agile.
Is there an architecture that can evolve?
W/o tradeoffs there is no architecture. Architecture conditions later decisions.
What must I decide now v. later? (Last responsible moment.)
Silly to claim that we're going to be flexible about everything.
Platform choices and interface definitions have to be frozen early, everybody builds around these.
There's the stuff on the bottom that's really hard to change, and there's the Marketing requirements that have to play together nicely on top.
Architecture is "normative" in the sense that it burnishes off the detailed MRD items in support of the longer-term needs of the enterprise.
Transition from WF was to bring in other functions to ensure the -ilities are honored.

Micro Services – how do you fail gracefully when multiple services have to all work?:
It's not an exception anymore - these things just happen now.
Consider using a functional language and/or a "sequence of states" oriented DB

"Emergent Design" (from XP) v. Architecture:
"Below" v "Above" the waterline. Arch is the latter, they constrain all the others.
What do I have to do now, what can I afford to do now?
Who is responsible for the architecture?
The team always has the ultimate responsibility, architects need to promote & persuade

Post discussion: let's try it this way again next month, already posted.