Talk:Chrysler Comprehensive Compensation System

Automobiles Low‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is a bit of a shambles - the timeline is not chronological and it doesn't really explain what happened.

I've reworked the article and added a little more detail, but there's obviously need for more details. However, I think it's cleran enough to remove the cleanup notice, which I have now done. — Stumps 15:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Timeline troubles edit

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

"In March 1996 the development team estimated that the system would be ready to go into production around one year later. In 1997 the development team adopted a way of working which is now formalized as Extreme Programming.[3] The one-year delivery target was nearly achieved, with the actual delivery being a couple of months late..."

"...C3 never managed to make another release despite two more year's development."

"DaimlerChrysler stopped the C3 project on 1 February 2000."

The estimate in 1996 was one year to production. In 1997, the team adopted/invented XP. In 1998, the team delivered the first funcitoning system. Is this right? Then how can it constitute achieving the target? It sounds like a one-year slip. If the team re-grouped in 1997 and said "one year from today, and this time, we mean it," and they went on to come within 16%- 25% of this target, then the article should reflect that. Can someone shed some light here? --Craigkbryant 20:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

In addition, the assertion that DaimlerChrysler resumed XP programming practice is somewhat suspect. The reference to a usenet thread leads nowhere. Also, in 2005, I was consulting there and asked around about XP practices. As far as I was informed, no one was using them, but it is also quite a large and diverse tech environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titoson (talk • contribs) 01:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

From martinfowler.com edit

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

A reference which could be used with the article: C3 Mathmo ^Talk 21:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll also note, that it mentions the wikipedia article. In a critical manner, should be helpful to point out what parts of the article should be more closely looked at. Mathmo ^Talk 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

"... the entry in Wikipedia is misleading and incomplete, much of its comments seem to be based on a paper from a determined XP critic whose sources are unclear. Certainly its comments on performance are a misleading interpretation of material in my Refactoring book."

Add topic