<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Thinking inside a bigger box - Latest Comments in The Waterfall Process Distilled</title><link>http://thinkinginsideabiggerbox.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://thinkinginsideabiggerbox.disqus.com/the_waterfall_process_distilled/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:42:15 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: The Waterfall Process Distilled</title><link>http://johannesbrodwall.com/2007/02/16/the-waterfall-process-distilled/#comment-1797701</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I have been wondering if this process leaves both proponents of waterfall and iterative development feeling vindicated. With waterfall-tinted glasses, it looks like the project was successfull, but the plan "failed a little". With iterative-tinted glasses, we might not notice that many iterative projects build on the architecture of "failed" waterfalls...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Johannes Brodwall</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 19:42:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: The Waterfall Process Distilled</title><link>http://johannesbrodwall.com/2007/02/16/the-waterfall-process-distilled/#comment-1797700</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This sounds very familiar, all though all projects I have attended were supposed to be iterative from the start...&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Christian Rørdam</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:39:10 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>