Talk:Brooks's law

John Drummond

The link to John Drummond is broken. And, I can't find in Brooks's book this variation on Brooks's Law that Drummond gives. Can anyone shed light on this? --Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochkind (talk • contribs) 17:56, 10 January 2006

Brooks's

I have changed Brooks's to Brooks' since that is how it's in the title. But it appears there is some discussion. Which is correct? Please discuss here before changing. Google shows "Brooks' law" as the clear winner. Piet 15:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If it becomes Brooks's law, the article should move to that name.Piet 15:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are more than one Brooks, Brooks's is correct

I could be mistaken here, but in English classes, we were taught that a word whose singlular ends in "s" does not take an additional "s" after the apostrophe. If this is incorrect, do you have a good source where I might straighten out this and (preferrably) other mistakes? Zuiram 19:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've clearly got too much time on my hands. http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv57.shtml - says either works for names (e.g. Dickens' or Dickens's) according to preference - seems reasonable and pragmatic, like language should be - and since Brooks himself uses the former form, we should be consistent and reflect that in the article. Because consistency (far from being the last refuge of the scoundrel) is the most important thing. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.228.156.225 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It's Brooks's. The rule is that an extra S is not added to possessive plurals which end in S, not just any word. And Brooks himself uses "Brooks's", so even if there were a grammatical argument (which there isn't) we'd use the author's nomenclature. Chris Cunningham 09:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This information is incorrect. It is currently taught that if a singular noun ends in s, you do not add an additional s when you make it possessive. If you do not believe me you can check wikipedia's own page on grammar "Genetive case" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genitive_case#The_English_-.27s_ending . It lists "Confucius' " as an example. Spelling this page as "Brooks's" is just plain silly and conflicts with other information on this very website. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.213.212.37 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The linked article doesn't go into any detail about this, and is not necessarily correct. Most style guides recommend adding an 's' at the end, regardless of the final consonant, e.g: http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html#1 Fowler's Modern English Usage (don't have a copy to hand, so no page number) recommends this unless it's a famous name and common practice is not to do so, e.g. "Jesus'" and perhaps the "Confucius'" referred to by the previous commenter. Given these facts and the fact that Brooks called it "Brooks's law", I'm in favour of a change. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.84.130 (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it is correct. The rule has always been words that end in S do not add a second S after the apostrophe. It's been that way for at least 50 years, with no signs of change in sight. The correct title should be "Brooks' Law". I have corrected this.dunerat (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Google has "Brooks' Law" to "Brooks's Law" at 25,000 to 3,000. Several of the references call it Brooks'. I think this is pretty much against conventions for grammar. Ocaasi (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been edited and reverted at least twice. i am have logged a request to change it to "Brooks' Law", for the same reasons i marked the edit the last time: "Brooks'" is grammatically correct and consistant with wiki style guides, and "Brooks's" is not. Similarly, the names of other various laws (e.g., Boyle's Law, Sturgeon's Law) capitalise "law" because it is a proper noun.-- Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunerat (talk • contribs) 16:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Open Source Software Development

The wording of the section ("Some would claim") irks me. Is it worthy of a weasel-word tag or a citation/reference needed one? 85.216.249.92 15:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL would seem to support your irk. However, someone appears to have edited that out, and now we have what appears to be a factual claim. The section might still need some work. --Teratornis 17:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The claim is misleading. The Cathedral and the Bazaar suggests that Brooks's Law really only applies to the core developer group, and adding a large number of minor contributors does not cause a significant productivity penalty. (Of course, Raymond asserts this as fact without providing any evidence.) --70.92.156.183 04:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If Brook Law doesn't apply to it, why it's commented here? The name of the section have nothing to see with the article. Maybe would be more adecuate to move this part to the open source article as it talks more about open source than Brook law. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.87.170.71 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions Section

I've remove a section title "Misconceptions" consisting of the following paragraph. I think the paragraph is not coherent (since it talks about two different things in its two sentences), and it's not sourced at all. If someone wants to re-add it in some better form, feel free. -- Ddxc (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

A commonly understood implication of Brooks's law is that it will be more productive to employ a smaller number of very talented (and highly paid) programmers on a project than to employ a larger number of less talented programmers, since individual programmer productivity can vary greatly between highly talented and efficient programmers and less talented programmers. However, Brooks's law does not mean that starving a project of resources by employing fewer programmers beyond a certain point will get it done faster.

References/Citations

This article was marked in December 2007 as "unreferenced"; however, it cites the main book on the subject ("The Mythical Man Month", by Fred Brooks himself), and also other articles. What is missing? It's safe (or proper) to remove the "unreferenced" warning? CarlosRibeiro (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

We need secondary sources. I've updated the tag. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've heavily revised the article, and included some references that I believe are authoritative. Can the warning be removed now? CarlosRibeiro (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for your work on this! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Brooks's Law and Open Source

I rewrote the section on "Open Source", adding explicit citations of Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" paper that point to the specific chapter that is posted online. I don't know if the citations were added "the right way". Please feel free to correct it, I'll be glad to learn how to do it. CarlosRibeiro (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the section on "commodities" for now, pending better referencing. Raymond certainly said it, but he's a primary source for the claim. I haven't seen it seriously argued. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the entire Open Source section be replaced by a single sentence saying that inasmuch as Brooks's law is about schedules, and open source projects don't have schedules, the law doesn't apply (or is irrelevant, or whatever the wording needs to be)? What is the relevance of all the points, as interesting as they may be, about open source? Rochkind (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I personally suggest removing the section. I think it doesn't say anything which hasn't been said before it. Cristan (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of different communication channels

> The number of different communication channels increases along with the square of the number of people; doubling the number of people results in four times as many different conversations.

This is not precisely correct. For N people, there are C(N,2) different communication channels, and not N^2 channels. Doubling the number of people results in C(2N,2) communication channels, or an increase in "C(2N/2) / C(N/2)" times as many conversations.

For instance, with four people, there are C(4,2) = 6 communication channels. Doubleing four people to eight results in C(8,2) = 28 communication channels.

This is less than a squared increase in the number of people. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.193.29 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 25 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 02:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Brooks's law → Brooks' Law - The requested title change is grammatically correct and consistent with wiki style-guides, whereas the current title is not. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)  - dunerat (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I hate to do this, but I have to contest this as a technical move. The guideline WP:COMMONNAME may be a guideline that someone could use to dispute this move. A quick search for this term in search engines returns both titles: the one with the "s'", and the one with "s's". (I'm honestly neutral on the name, but I think it may be wise to put this through the WP:RM process to enforce the name change, or lack thereof, with consensus.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. In fact, after looking at the edit history of the page, looks like this move is controversial. I'm going to move this discussion to the article's talk page shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is now on the talk page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If i mis-categorized the move, my apologies. i probably wasn't interpreting the guidelines correctly. It should have been marked as a contested technical move. dunerat (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. See MOS:POSS. Either is acceptable and switching one way or the other is discouraged (similar to ENGVAR). Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is not clear why nom thinks there is grammar or style issue in using normal possessive form here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The modern practices...

Currently the article states:

Good management and development practices also help to minimize the impact of Brooks' law. The modern practices of continuous integration, test-driven development, and iterative development significantly reduce the inter-developer communication overhead, and thus allow for better scalability

However the source (IBM:continuous integration agile development (a soft sell document for an IBM software product to help automate continuous integration)) does not support that support that statement.

The only explicit mention of communicate is

• "It also provides an easier way to communicate the functionality of a component, which can be valuable for the pair programming and "code review" that is common in agile development."

A less explicit statement

• "One of the things that this technique provides is the ability to deliver smaller, functional releases that are built and tested at many dates along the project schedule."

but this does not acknowledge if Brooks' law exists within agile development groups or between multiple agile groups.

Indeed at the end of the paper there is a section called "Collaboration" and it is silent on whether this method helps to mitigate Brooks' law either explicitly or implicitly.

-- PBS (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

literal text

I believe the law should be cited literally here as it is written in the Mythical Man Month, not a close paraphrase. It would be "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.117.217.200 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Incremental person

What is an "incremental person"?

Wainstead (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Brooks is saying there is a maximum number of people on a team beyond which inter-project communication is so difficult that productivity starts to decrease. The 'incremental person' is one beyond that.

Cygnosis (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Bermuda

The last sentence of the page is merely a reference to a snarky comment at the end of an article in Info World.

A way to finish a project is to invert Brooks's law. This is the Bermuda plan, when 90% of the developers are removed ("send them to Bermuda") and the remaining 10% complete the software.[13]

It is not factually accurate (though it is presented as such) nor is it useful in understanding the topic. The reference is incorrect as well, searching for vaporware instead of Bermuda. The actual comment in the referenced article reads as follows.

To hear some developers tell it, it's a miracle that any software package ever gets completed at all. One cynic has even devised a scheme for finishing software that he calls the "bermuda plan" - put 90% of the company's programmers on a boat and send them to Bermuda while the other 10% write the program.

If this sentence were written in a Wikipedia article it would be roundly criticized. Why should a reference to it be treated any better? Cygnosis (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

First, the search string used to generate the URL has nothing to do with the article's validity.

Second, the preceding paragraph makes clear that Bermuda Plan is a direct response to Brooks's Law, not to the trend of vaporware (although Brooks's Law certainly contributes to vaporware, as the article discusses) or slow development in general.

Third, what's more "snarky" about the idea that during crunch time leaving alone the top performers on a team to do their job undisturbed, than the idea of Brooks's Law itself?

Bottom line: A reliable source discusses a logical corollary to Brooks's Law, the paragraph after discussing Brooks's Law. and gives it a name. That the "Bermuda Plan" sounds funny does not invalidate it. Ylee (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to reply. I agree the query portion of the URL is irrelevant. And yes, the comment is clearly about Brook's law. But I think it does not have a place in a Wikipedia article for a few reasons.

One, weasel words like "some developers" and "One cynic" serve to indicate that this is a joke in an otherwise serious article.

Two, the text of the Brook's Law article directly contradicts the validity of the statement in the infoworld article.

"Projects can be brought back into (or kept in) control if people are added earlier in the process."

"One simple way to circumvent the law on an overrun project is to add more people than needed..."

so adding more people to a project early enough does help to bring it in on time, contrary to the statement in question which claims that removing people from a project will help get more work done faster.

Three, the statement/joke is based on the harmful and incorrect myth of the 10x developer.

Contrasting bottom line: It's a joke about Brook's Law, clearly indicated in an otherwise reliable source. The statement itself is demonstrably incorrect. And it's based on a harmful and incorrect myth of developer productivity.

--Cygnosis (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

• Why even bring up the "vaporware" search string thing if you knew how pointless that was as a criticism? I can only assume that you didn't expect that I would know that. This is, like, the total opposite of WP:AGF.

• You're talking about Brooks's Law, and the topic of measuring the pace of software development, as if it's a scientifically proven theorem. Fred Brooks made an observation based on his experience with the IBM 360, which over subsequent decades seems to usually be correct. That's all. It doesn't always hold, or always should be held to apply in all cases.

• An article on Fred Brooks c. 1964 might very well have described his observation—pre Mythical Man-Month canonized the principle and made him a sage—as a cynical remark brought up on by the massive stresses brought on him by managing a giant project that threatened to eat IBM alive.

• There's no disagreement here anyway. Brooks's Law applies (and has always been understood to apply) to the specific case of a giant project that is late (again, the IBM 360), and people within and without the project ask "Well, what if we add more people?" (and probably has already had people added for that reason). Brooks observed that in such cases, usually the opposite of the desired outcome occurs. He never intended Brooks's Law to mean that adding people to any project is always bad in terms of delivery time. Similarly, the Bermuda Plan doesn't mean that any software team is always more productive if 90% of people are removed, but that in the specific crunch time situations where Brooks's Law says that adding more people is (counterintuitively) probably a bad idea, taking away less productive people may (counterintuitively) be a good idea.

• If you want to cite a Medium article on the "harmful and incorrect" (I mean, really? A crippling disease is harmful. Flat earth theory is incorrect. Believing that some developers are unusually productive is both?) myth of superproductive developers, I'll cite the articles on Pareto principle and 1% rule (Internet culture). Ylee (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

About the query portion of the URL, I made an irrelevant comment in my original argument and I admitted it. Why would that make you think I am not assuming, or acting in, good faith?

I do believe the 10x developer myth, and its restatement in the "Bermuda plan", is harmful and incorrect. The implication, if you subscribe to it, is that some people are only ever going to be barely competent, and others are naturally gifted and just better than the rest. This leads to managers treating toxic people better than the rest of the team because the manager believes they are 10x more productive. It leads to unrealistic hiring practices that overlook the majority of good developers that could contribute well to a project. The reality of the situation is there are attitudes and behaviors that most any developer can adopt to improve their skills and performance. Looking at it that way helps everyone on a team instead of dividing them.

And I think you're attributing a lot more gravitas to this "Bermuda Plan" than it deserves. If you google search it what comes up first is a link to the ProgrammerHumor subreddit, then a few pages that reference this wikipedia article, then the original infoworld article. It's not a real thing. It's just a joke. And leaving it in an otherwise serious Wikipedia page is elevating it in a way that it doesn't deserve. Cygnosis (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been a few days and you haven't responded. In the absence of any further discussion I'm going to assume you've either lost interest or you've changed your mind. I'm therefore going to remove this line from the article again. I suggest if you still disagree with that edit that one of us should request a third party opinion and we should agree to go with whatever they decide.

Cygnosis (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not respond to you since I didn't think you had made any points needing responding to. Your opinion of the so-called 10X myth is not germane to this discussion, except for the laughable aspect of calling it "harmful and incorrect" with a straight face. You made the "irrelevant remark" hoping that I wouldn't know what you were talking about and be intimidated; why else would you mention something that you yourself admit is utterly unrelated to the discussion? Once I responded you immediately backtracked. That's not a sign of willingness to discuss in good faith; use of the "harmful and incorrect" description is another (and hilarious, as mentioned).

Again, this is a reliable source proposing a plausible alternative/solution to the problem Brooks's Law poses, right after discussing Brooks's Law. That it has a superficially funny-sounding name or aspect is irrelevant to its merits; if such disqualify a subject from coverage in Wikipedia I suggest you don't look up Tom Duff's discussion of Duff's Device, Church of Emacs, or The Story of Mel. WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove something from Wikipedia. Ylee (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems we have reached an impasse. The main point I have been trying to make in every step of this discussion is that this 'Bermuda plan', though it appeared in a reputable source, and followed a discussion about Brook's law, was never intended to be taken seriously. It was never intended to be a plausible alternative or a solution to brooks law. It was a bad joke in an otherwise serious article and it doesn't fit on this Wikipedia page. You seem to disagree. Since we aren't going to come to an agreement ourselves I suggest we enlist some assistance from a neutral third party. I'm listing this page and this discussion on the third party opinion page as mentioned above and I will abide by whatever decision is provided. I can only hope you are willing to do the same.

--Cygnosis (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

My sincere apology for the delay. It appears that this discussion revolves around the inclusion of a reference to the ‘Bermuda plan’. This is currently included in the article as: A way to finish a project is to invert Brooks's law. This is the Bermuda plan, when 90% of the developers are removed ("send them to Bermuda") and the remaining 10% complete the software.. The source provided, which may incidentally be corrected to [1], discusses the Bermuda plan as a direct corollary to Brooks’s Law; providing one appropriate source. The essay on humor, whilst not a policy or guideline, provides some sensible guidance on the inclusion of humor or humorous content in articles. Given the reference and relationship, the inclusion of a single line regarding the Bermuda plan does not appear undue. However, the way the statement is currently written does not appear impartial / encyclopaedic. Overall, my view is (1) that the inclusion of a short line referring to 'Bermuda plan' is both reasonable and appropriate, and (2) that the line as it stands should be re-written. I might suggest something along the lines of The “Bermuda plan”, where a significant proportion of developers on a project are removed ('sent to Bermuda') and the remaining 10% are left to complete the software, has been suggested as a way of circumventing Brooks’s law.. I will freely admit that I am not the best creator of prose, you will likely be able to come up with something far better than I am.... I hope that this is helpful. Jack Frost (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Jack Frost (talk · contribs), thank you for the review. I have no problem with your prose as the substitute for the previous text in the article. I woudl slightly reword it to The “Bermuda plan”, where most developers on a project are removed ('sent to Bermuda') and the remaining are left to complete the software, has been suggested as a way of circumventing Brooks’s law. to clarify that the suggestion is that only a minority of the original pool is to remain. Ylee (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

One week has passed. I will implement the above edit. Ylee (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References