As a member of XP France, I attended the annual meeting that took place during XP Day Paris last week.
Things have been moving for our little group.
Agile France
First and foremost, the group is renaming itself. It will thereafter be known as Agile France.
The extended French-speaking sphere
Second, its bylaws changed to reflect that the group is willing to help anyone in the extended French-speaking sphere (ie. French-speaking countries, non-French groups in countries where French is spoken, and French-speaking groups in countries where French is not an official language).
6-member strong board
Thirdly, a stronger team of people has been elected members of the board. We are jumping from 3 (Laurent Bossavit, Gabriel Le Van, Patrice Petit) to 6 (Raphaël Pierquin, Bernard Notarianni, Sandrine Olivencia, Antoine Contal, Laurent Bossavit). This boardis elected for 2 years.
What to think of all this?
- in my view, the name change is excellent. I do believe that it will give more credibility to the organization. I remember talking to someone who thinks that the French Scrum User Group had been created in part because they felt that Scrum was not well represented by XP France — he repeated that this was clear to him, considering the name. I do not believe XP France is neglecting Scrum, but it is just as well that the name makes it clear.
- specifiying that the association is willing to help the whole “extended French-speaking sphere” proved to be controversial. I personnally do not care much, but many thought that we can get into conflicts with other groups, such as Agile Québec. I’d personnally be very surprised if that becomes a problem.
- though I agree that the new team looks strong and motivated, I am disappointed by the slightly heavy handed manner. We were basically told “oh, we are also going to change the board and, by the way, there is the only team you can get to vote for”. A simple email to the mailing list would have helped make things easier. I think. Also, a few people seemed to be disappointed, as they would have been candidates, given the chance.
- I am also disappointed by the rather long mandate (2 years, down from 3 years in the original proposal). One argument was that 1 year is not enough to let the board members settle, and they would then be judged unfairly for their first year. Well, who’s saying that the members of the association would be so harsh as to kick them out if they can explain why they haven’t achieved much? Surely, a reasonable explanation is not too much to ask.
Anyway, at least it seems that the association is doing its best to be as relevant as possible. I think those changes are for the better.
See you next year and all the best to the new board! There is certainly work to do for everyone.
- Check out my pictures from the meeting
