Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!uh2
From: UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Boswell and the Project Chronicles
Message-ID: <41891UH2@PSUVM>
Date: 7 May 88 13:20:04 GMT
References: <321@uwslh.UUCP> <40335UH2@PSUVM> <758@dlhpedg.co.uk> <41127UH2@PSUVM> <20437@think.UUCP> <2697@geac.UUCP>
Organization: Penn Sate Erie--School of Business
Lines: 12

Brooks's Chief Programmer model does *not* require that the CP be a super-
programmer.  Only that there be someone who is responsible for being
intimately familiar with every line of code that goes in the final
product.  To make this possible, the CP must be relieved of being
familiar with code used for testing, tools, editing, and so on.

Note that lots of super programmers would make poor CP's, because of
a lack of ``people skills''.  They might make great Boswells, and
learn to be CP's someday.  They probably would be best at the tool maker
job, where the ability to throw together something new in a flash is
important.  This leads to interesting organizational problems--the
tool smith, who ``supports'' the CP is likely to be more importatn than
the CP, and could quite reasonable expect to be paid more.