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.